
CJass 



■vCl 



V\ 



hdk_Jl\_Z 



GoisyriglrtNi 



CiJHflRIGHT DEPOSHi 



iXj^ HARVARD UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS ^^ 

Harvard Historical Monographs 

No. 1 



The Veto Power 



ITS ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTION IN THE 

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

(1789-1889) 

BY 

EDWARD CAMPBELL MAs6n, A.B. 

Ikstructor in Political Economy 
EDITED BY 

ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor of History 




NOV 8 J WO ' 



BOSTON, U.S.A. 

PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY 

1890 



/ 



/ 



T \< ^^ =■ 



Copyright, 1890, by 
the president and fellows of harvard college. 



Typography by J. S. Gushing & Co., Boston. 
Presswork by Ginn & Co., Boston. 



EDITOR'S PREFACE. 



Among the many subjects in the constitutional development of 
the United States on which no formal treatise has been written, 
none seems more to deserve the attention of a scholar than that 
chosen by Mr. Mason and here presented as the first number of 
the Harvard Historical Monographs. The veto power is the most 
important of the institutions connecting the national executive 
with the legislature ; the provision for a revision by an enlarged 
majority of the legislature is original in the United States ; the 
vetoes have appertained to some of the most interesting episodes 
of American history ; the power is in frequent exercise, yet has of 
late been somewhat disputed. 

In a work of this kind, based on records sometimes defective 
and usually badly indexed, perfection is almost impossible. The 
greatest pains have, however, been taken to make the list of vetoes 
complete. In the Report made to the Senate in 1886, by the 
Senate Committee on Printing, there are printed, with some other 
matter, two hundred and thirty-seven veto messages, which were 
supposed by the Committee to include all that had ever been ren- 
dered. Mr. Mason has discovered ten additional vetoes, to which 
reference is made in appendix A ; and he has added references to 
one hundred and eighty-six messages submitted since the date of 
the report. 

The Editor's function has been that of advice, suggestion, and 
revision ; the labor of preparation is entirely Mr. Mason's own. 
All important points of opinion have been discussed between us, 
but in every case Mr. Mason has stated his own views and assumes 
all responsibility for them. Although the work deals with politi- 
cal subjects, many of which are still subjects of debate, both 

[3] 



4 Veto Power: — Editors Preface. 

Editor and Author have endeavored to avoid political bias ; the 
vetoes are condemned or approved upon what seem to us sound 
principles of constitutional law and political expediency, irrespec- 
tive of the attitude of present parties. The effort has been made 
in the notes and appendices to furnish all the apparatus necessary 
for following out and testing the Author's conclusions, and for pur- 
suing the subject further. 

It had been intended to add a chapter on the workings of the 
veto in the States, and another on the veto power in modern 
constitutions. The discussion of the veto in the national system 
of government in the United States has required more space than 
had been anticipated : the two additional chapters have therefore 
been omitted. But, for purposes of comparison, there has been 
introduced as an appendix a tabulation of the provisions of state 
constitutions. In another appendix will be found a list of the 
vetoes of the President of the Confederate States of America. 
The material for it has been kindly furnished for this Monograph 
by Mr. John Osborne Sumner, a member of the Graduate Depart- 
ment, from the manuscript Journals of the Confederate Congress, 
which he has been the first historical scholar to study. 

I desire also to express my obligation to Dr. Charles Gross, 

of Harvard University, for his careful revision of the proofs ; and 

to Professor J. B. Thayer, of the Harvard Law School, for helpful 

suggestions. 

ALBERT BUSHNELL HART. 
Cambridge, April 12, 1890. 



AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



The object of the present Monograph is, to trace the develop- 
ment and operation of the veto power in the government of the 
United States. The work is almost wholly the result of an 
examination of the sources. Indeed such a course was almost a 
necessity since very little has been written upon the subject. 
The basis of the study is a list of the Presidential vetoes, compiled 
from the records of Congress, and covering the period from the 
foundation of the present form of government in 1789, to the 
end of President Cleveland's administration, March 4, 1889. 

For convenience of comparison, the vetoes have been classified 
according to subject ; and to the discussion of these classes the 
greater part of the work is devoted. It has, however, seemed 
essential in a full treatment of the subject to prefix a brief account 
of the origin in English and Colonial precedent of that particular 
form of the veto power which is found in the United States : and 
to add a chapter on the constitutional points which have arisen 
concerning the operation of the veto power ; and another on the 
gradual development of the power during the century of the 
national government. 

The preparation of the thesis began in the fall of 1887, in one 
of the Historical Research Courses in Harvard University, and has 
been continued most of the time since, as undergraduate and grad- 
uate work, in connection with the University, under the direction 
of Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, the editor of the Monograph. 
I desire to express my obligation to Dr. William Everett, of 
Quincy, Mass., for information in regard to the decline of the 
veto in England ; and to Mr. Herman V. Ames, a member of 
the Graduate Department of Harvard College, who has kindly 

[5] 



6 Veto Power: — Authors Preface. 

furnished me with a list of proposed amendments which concern 
the veto power. The authorities used will be found enumerated 
in Appendix C. As the work is based upon the voluminous 
Government Records, special pains have been taken to verify 
every reference, both in the text and appendix. Nevertheless, 
errors may have crept in, owing either to errors in the originals 
or to inadvertence. I shall be happy to acknowledge the cor- 
rection of such mistakes as may be discovered. The deductions 
have been made after long and careful thought ; but are subject 
to the errors into which a person not directly connected with 
the administration of affairs is always liable to fall. Here again, 
corrections and criticisms will be gladly received. 

The results of the study of this somewhat neglected portion of 
American constitutional history are given to the public in the hope 
that they may aid in the further investigation both of the question 
here considered and of other related and unsolved problems in 
United States history and law. 

EDWARD CAMPBELL MASON. 
Cambridge, April 12, 1890. 



CONTENTS. 



§ 


I. 


§ 


2. 


§ 


3- 


§ 


4- 


§ 


5- 


§ 


6. 


§ 


7- 


§ 


8. 


§ 


9- 


§ 


lO. 


§ 


II. 



CHAPTER I. 

GENESIS OF THE VETO POWER. 

Origin of the Veto Power II 

Legislative Power among the Teutonic Tribes II 

Legislative Power in England down to the Appearance of the Royal Veto. . . I2 
Extension of Royal Legislative Power : Proclamation, Suspension, and Dis- 
pensation 13 

Limitations on Royal Legislative Power; the Veto 14 

Disappearance of the Veto in England 15 

The Veto Power in the American Colonies 17 

The Veto Power in the First State Constitutions 18 

The Veto Power under the Articles of Confederation 19 

The Veto Power in the Federal Convention 20 

The Veto Clause in the Constitution of the United States. . , 22 



CHAPTER II. 

VETOES AFFECTING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 

§ 12. Executive Methods of treating a Bill o . 24 

§ 13. Classification of the Vetoes 25 

§ 14. Vetoes affecting the Form of the National Legislature 25 

§ 15. Vetoes affecting the Form of the National Judiciary , 27 

§ 16. General Effect of Vetoes considered in this Chapter , ....... o . . 30 

CHAPTER III. 

VETOES AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWERS 
OF GOVERNMENT. 

§ 17. Classification of Vetoes in this Chapter 31 

§ 18. Executive Claims to Legislative Power supported by the Veto 32 

§ 19. The Bank Veto 32 

§ 20. Removal of the Deposits 2>1> 

§ 21. Vetoes for the. Protection of the Executive from Legislative Encroachment. . 35 

§ 22. Power over Foreign Affairs : the Treaty Power 36 

§ 23. Establishment of Consular and Diplomatic Offices 37 

§ 24. Diplomatic Intercourse , . 39 

[7] 



8 Veto Power. 

§ 25. The Power of Appointment 39 

§ 26. Requiring Names of Candidates for Appointment 40 

§ 27. Requiring Papers relative to Removals from Office 41 

§ 28. The Tenure of Office Act 42 

§ 29. The Fitz-John Porter Bill 43 

§ 30. Protest for the Protection of the President's War Power 44 

§ 31. Protest and Veto for the Protection of the President's Personal Rights 

under the Constitution 45 

§ 32. Covode Investigation 45 

§ 33. The President's Salary 45 

§ 34. Use of the Veto in Controversies arising out of the Civil War 46 

§ 35. Riders on Appropriation Bills 47 

§ 36. General Effect of the Vetoes for the Protection of the Executive 49 



CHAPTER IV. 

VETOES AFFECTING THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF 
GOVERNMENT. 

§ 37. Classification 52 

§ 38. Relation of the National Government to Individuals 52 

§ 39- Question of the Establishment of Religion 53 

§ 40. Naturalization 54 

§ 41. The Indians 54 

§ 42. The Negro 57 

§ 43. The Chinese , , 58 

§ 44. General Remarks on the Power over Individuals 59 

§ 45. Territorial Powers; Public Land 59 

§ 46. Early Land Vetoes , 60 

§ 47. Public Lands and the Constitution; Land Grants 61 

§ 48. Later Land Vetoes on Grounds of Expediency 64 

§ 49. Effect of the Public Land Vetoes 66 

§ 50. Admission of States 67 

§51. Criticism of the Colorado and Nebraska Vetoes 68 

§ 52. Financial Powers 69 

§ 53. The Tariff 69 

§ 54. Refunding the Direct Tax , 72 

§ 55. Bank Charter Vetoes 74 

§ 56. Madison's Bank Veto 74 

§ 57. Jackson's Bank Veto 74 

§ 58. • Tyler's Bank Veto 76 

§ 59. Criticism of Bank Vetoes 78 

§ 60. Currency and Coinage 78 

§ 61. Inflation Bill 80 

§ 62. The Bland Silver Bill 81 

§ 63. Expenditure of Public Money : 82 

§ 64. French Spoliation Claims 83 

§ 65. Relief Bills 85 

§ 66. Bills defrauding the Government of Money 85 



Conte?its. 9 

§ 67. Bills relieving Deserters from the Army 86 

§ 68. Bills relieving former Army Officers of Disability 86 

§ 69. Bills carelessly drawn 86 

§ 70. Miscellaneous Relief Bills 87 

§ 71. Pension Vetoes 87 

§ 72. Bills conveying no Benefit , 88 

§ 73. Unnecessary Increase of Pensions 88 

§ 74. Injmues not received " in the Line of Duty " 88 

§ 75. Dependent Relatives : Dependency not proved 88 

§ 76. Miscellaneous Pension Bills 88 

§ 77. Dependent Pension Bill 89 

§ 78. President Cleveland's Pension Policy 90 

§ 79. Expediency of the Pension Vetoes 91 

§ 80. Constitutionality of the Pension Vetoes 92 

§ 81. Summary of the Question of Pension Vetoes 93 

§ 82. Commercial Powers 93 

§ 83. Internal Improvements 94 

§ 84. Madison's Veto of a General Bill 94 

§ 85. Monroe's Cumberland Road Veto. ConstitutionaHty of Improve- 
ments 95 

§86. Jackson's Vetoes. Jurisdiction and Local Character 96 

§ 87. Tyler's Vetoes. Improvement of Water-Ways 99 

§ 88. Polk's Vetoes. Local Improvements 100 

§ 89. Pierce's Vetoes. Implied Powers loi 

§ 90. Buchanan's Vetoes. Constitutional Grounds 103 

§ 91. Grant's Veto and Refusal to carry out a Bill 103 

§ 92. Arthur's Veto. Local Objects 104 

§ 93. Public Buildings 105 

§ 94. General View of Internal Improvement Vetoes 106 

§ 95. Measures based on the General Welfare Clause 107 

§ 96. Texas Seed Bill 107 

§ 97. War Powers 108 

§ 98. General Effect of the Veto on the Exercise of the Powers of Government 109 



CHAPTER V. 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE AS TO VETOES. 

§ 99, The Action of the President m 

§ 100. Is the Exercise of the Veto a Legislative Power? 1 12 

§ loi. Constitutionality of Pocket Vetoes. The Legal Ten Days 113 

§ 102. May a Bill be vetoed without stating Reasons? 1 14 

§ 103. May a Bill be signed after the Adjournment of Congress? 115 

§ 104. May a President refuse to carry out an Act ? 116 

§ 105. The President's Right of Protest "7 

§ 106. Is the Signature of the President Essential to Constitutional Amend- 
ments ? 117 

§ 107. The Action of Congress Ii8 

§ 108. Has the Executive a Right to recall a Veto ? 118 



10 Veto Power. 

§ 109. What is a Two-thirds Majority? , 119 

§ 1 10. Has the Speaker a Right to vote on Reconsideration? 120 

§ III. Second Reconsideration of a Veto 120 

§ 112. Failure to enter the Veto Message in the Journal 122 

§ 113. Frequent Neglect of Reconsideration 122 

§ 1 14. Comparative Unimportance of Constitutional Details 123 

CHAPTER VI. 

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO POWER. 

§ 1 15. Reasons for Chronological Treatment 1 24 

§ 1 16. Statistics of Vetoes 124 

§ 1 1 7. Personal Element in the Veto 1 26 

§ 118. Presidents who vetoed No Bills 126 

§ 1 19. Presidents who vetoed Few Bills 126 

§ 120. Presidents who vetoed Many Bills , 126 

§ 121. Reasons expressed for Vetoes 129 

§ 122. The Constitution and Expediency 129 

§ 123. Cause of the Increasing Use of Expediency as a Reason for Vetoes. . 130 

§ 124. Effect of the Veto on Parties 131 

§ 125. Effect of the Veto on Legislation 132 

§ 126. Prevention of Unwise Measures 133 

§ 127. Prevention of Unwise Lines of Policy 133 

§ 128. Indirect Influence of the Veto on Legislation 134 

§ 129. Vetoes which have failed of their Object 134 

§ 130. Popular Objections to the Veto 135 

§ 131. Proposed Constitutional Amendments 136 

§ 132. Attempts to destroy the Power 136 

§ 133. Attempts to diminish the Power 136 

§ 134. Attempts to enlarge the Power 137 

§ 135. The Veto Power in 1789 and in 1889 138 

APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX A. 

Chronological List of Presidential Vetoes with References (1789-1889) 141 

APPENDIX B. 

Chronological List of Presidential Protests (i 789-1 889) 208 

APPENDIX C. 

Chronological List of Vetoes sent to the Confederate Congress (i 861-1865) 210 

APPENDIX D. 

Legislative Activity of the Presidents (1789-1889) 214 

APPENDIX E. 

Provisions of State Constitutions relative to the Veto. 215 

APPENDIX F. 

Bibliography of the Veto Power 220 



CHAPTER I. 

GENESIS OF THE VETO POWER. 

§ I. Origin of the veto power. 

§ 2. Legislative power among the Teutonic tribes. 

§ 3. Legislative power in England down to the appearance of the royal veto. 

§ 4. Extension of royal legislative power : proclamation, suspension, dispensation. 

§ 5. Limitations on royal legislative power : the veto. 

§ 6. Disappearance of the veto in England. 

§ 7. The veto power in the American Colonies. 

§ 8. The veto power in the first State constitutions. 

§ 9. The veto power under the Articles of Confederation. 

§ 10. The veto power in the Federal Convention. 

§ II. The veto clause in the Constitution of the United States. 

§ I. Origin of the veto power. — The veto power which to-day 
seems purely a power to prevent the passage of proposed laws, 
originated as a part of the power to make them. This paradox is 
explained by the fact that legislation includes the right of the 
legislating body either to accept or to reject the propositions 
which it discusses. It has a positive and a negative function, and 
this latter function is in its nature a power to veto or deny. 
Among our German political ancestors both legislative functions 
were exercised by the same authority. Since the time of the 
Teutonic tribes a change has gradually been taking place, and now 
in the United States two authorities are interested in the making 
of laws : Congress, which, like its early prototype, can either accept 
or reject proposed legislation ; and the President, who is entirely 
separate from Congress, but has a qualified power of rejection 
which is similar to the negative power of Congress. 

The steps by which the change has taken place are clearly to 
be seen in English history. 

§ 2. Legislative pow^er among the Teutonic tribes. — In the 
Germany of Tacitus legislative power was lodged with the free- 
men. These men, who formed a majority of the tribe, met in 
assemblies and transacted in a rude way the business of the tribe. ^ 

1 Freeman, Growth of the English Constitution, 12. 
[II] 



12 



Veto Power: — Genesis. [Ch. 



We find among these peoples principes or nobles, and in some cases 
even kings, who were chosen by popular vote, and who had full 
authority in minor matters.^ But the weightier affairs of state 
could be settled only by the assembly, although even in these cases 
the questions were prepared by the principes for the action of the 
freemen.2 The people, therefore, really made their own laws, yet 
we see the germs of that kingly influence on legislation which in 
early English history became well-nigh supreme. 

§ 3. Legislative power in England down to the appearance of 
the royal veto. — When the Teutonic tribes conquered England, 
they brought with them their political constitution and set it up 
in the conquered land, practically unchanged. The people were 
still sovereign. Little by little, however, the King acquired power, 
and always at the expense of popular authority. In the first place, 
as the English kingdom spread further and further out over the 
island, the King, from the very fact of this growth, became more 
and more powerful.^ Again, there were certain persons in the 
nation to whom the King sustained the relation of personal lord. 
As the King became a more powerful personage, it of course be- 
came more of an honor to be the King's servant or Thegn,* and in 
a comparatively short time all the chief men in the nation became 
in this way the personal supporters of the King. His position was 
thus very materially strengthened. 

The growing power of the King was nowhere more clearly seen 
than in the national council, the Witenagemot. At first, just as in 
the assemblies among the Teutonic tribes, all the freemen -of the 
kingdom attended.^ As the English extended their territory, per- 
sonal presence became practically an impossibility for the great 
majority of freemen, and, in the end, only the chief men of the 
nation, many of whom were the " King's men," attended these 
meetings.^ Thus the legislative power which had been exercised 
formerly by the whole people came to be exercised by a compara- 
tively small number of men who were summoned and practically 
controlled by the King. 

The Norman Conquest strengthened the legislative_power of 

^ Stubbs, Select Charters, 4. 

^ Tacitus, De Moribus Germanias, c. 7-13. 

^ Freeman, Growth of the English Constitution, 36. 

4 Ibid., 50. 5 Ibid., 60. 

^ Stubbs, Select Charters, 11. 



§§2-4.] Legislative Power in Germany and Engla^id. 13 

the kings ; and consequently the duties of Parliament became more 
than ever a mere matter of form. Parliament held the shadow of 
power, while the King enjoyed the substance.^ Supremacy over 
Parliament was retained by the King well down to the reign of 
Edward III ; and during this period, the subjects of legislation as 
well as the mode of dealing with them rested with the royal will. 
In many cases a mere proclamation by the Sovereign created law.^ 
Generally, however, the matter was laid before the council, but 
even then the King's authority was a condition precedent to the 
action of the council.^ 

§ 4. Extension of royal legislative power : proclamation, sus- 
pension, and dispensation. — There were three outgrowths of royal 
legislative power which lasted long after the surrender of the un- 
limited right to make laws, but which should be considered at 
this point. They were : the power of creating substantive laws 
by royal proclamation ; the power of suspension ; and the power 
of dispensation. 

From early times it had been customary for the kings of Eng- 
land to issue proclamations for the enforcement of law. The 
custom grew until at last the King commenced to issue proclama- 
tions, not for the enforcement, but fgr_the_£reation of law. As a 
rule, this power was exercised only when Parliament was not in 
session, and when some urgent necessity called for immediate 
legislation. The propriety of the King's action in such cases was' 
generally recognized and acquiesced in.* As the country grew, the 
royal proclamations became more frequent and their necessity less 
evident ; consequently they encountered a great deal of opposition 
from the people. In 1610, when James I and Parliament were 
quarrelling, the Commons issued an address to the Crown, com- 
plaining of the frequency of proclamations.^ The King consulted 
the judges in reference to the matter, and they declared against 
proclamations creating law. The practice was not ended by this 
decision, however ; and during the time of Charles I proclamations 
were more frequent than ever.^ The question was not finally set- 
tled until I 'jf)^, when an act of Parliament '' recognized the illegal- 
ity of proclamations creating law. 

1 Stubbs, Select Charters, 17-35. 

2 Hearn, Government of England, 37. 

* Ibid., 52, quoting Bracton in support of the statement. 

* Ibid., 38. 5 State Trials, II, 519. 
^ Hearn, Government of England, 40. "^ 7 George III, c. 7. 



14 Veto Power: — Genesis. [Ch. i. 

Laws passed by Parliament sometimes worked in unexpected 
ways which caused great hardship, and as the hardship generally 
became apparent after Parliament had been dissolved, it gradually 
became the custom for the King to suspend the troublesome act 
until it could be reconsidered.^ This was the suspsading power. 

Closely connected with the power just considered, was the dis- 
pensing power of the Crown, by the exercise of which the King 
could exempt particular persons from the operation of a law. Like 
the suspending power, it was in its exercise a partiaLrepeal of law.^ 

Both the power of dispensation and the power of suspension 
were acquiesced in by the people for a considerable time. Their 
disappearance, like the disappearance of many of the other powers 
of the Crown, dates from the overthrow of the Stuarts. The last 
two kings of this dynasty, in their attempts to remove the disabili- 
ties of Catholics and Dissenters, freely used the powers which we 
are considering. This action roused their opponents to an unrea- 
sonable pitch,^ and the powers were taken away from the Crown in 
the first year after the Revolution of 1688.^ The three incidents 
which we have just been considering, well illustrate the extensive 
legislative power of the early English kings. They show that not 
only was the royal authority necessary for the enactments by Par- 
liament, but that the Sovereign, wholly without consent of Parlia- 
ment, could both make and repeal laws. 

§ 5- Limitations on royal legislative power; the veto. — As 
has already been said, the period during which the kings of Eng- 
land had their greatest control of legislation lasted until about 
the time of Edward III. Then the House of Commons began 
to have a distinct influence in the making of laws, and the royal 
legislative power took on a new and less important character. 
In this period, as before, the King was the real power in legislation ; 
but hitherto he had acted as prompted by his own will, while now 
he makes use of his legislative power only when requested by the 
Parliament so to do. The usual method of procedure was as fol- 
lows. The Commons petitioned the King to make a law on a 
given subject. The King received the petition and made such 
a law as he thought fit.^ When once the power was set in motion, 

1 Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, 313. ^ Ibid., 313. 

^ Hallam, Constitutional History of England, IH, 62. 

* I William and Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2, ist Sec. Bill of Rights. 

^ Hearn, Government of England, 55. 



§§4-6-] Limitations of the Royal Legislative Power, 15 

the King could exercise it much as in former days, when he him- 
self took the initiative in legislation. The sovereigns were not 
slow to take away the effect of the privilege of the Commons, 
by granting laws which were in no sense an answer to the 
petitions upon which they were based. The practice was of course 
exceedingly distasteful to the Commons, and they objected strenu- 
ously, but to no purpose ; for the King continued to ignore the 
petitions. Finally the Commons drew up a petition in the precise 
form of an Act of Parliament. The Crown assented to it in 
the exact form in which it was drawn up. From this grew the 
custom of accepting or rejecting as a whole the petition of the 
Commons.^ The custom grew stronger as time went on, and by 
the beginning of the sixteenth century it was a fixed practice.^ 
The results of the new method were far-reaching. The King was 
almost wholly deprived of his positive power in legislation. All 
that was left him was the negative powei;. of disapproval. He could 
refuse his assent to a law, but he was not directly concerned in 
the making of law, however much he might accomplish by his 
influence with the legislature. 

Here at last we come upon the veto as we find it in the Con- 
stitution of the United States,- — -the right of the executive to 
refuse his assent to the laws which the legislature has framed. 
It is apparent that the veto is a remnant of the more extensive 
legislative power formerly held by the English kings. The power 
of legislation was cut down little by little, until at last only the 
veto was left. In time, as we shall see,^ an authority similar to 
the English veto was transferred to the chief executives of the 
American Colonies, and at last embedded in the Constitution of 
the United States. 

§ 6. Disappearance of the veto in England. — We have nOW 
traced the rise of the veto in England ; and, before passing to its 
history in America, let us examine briefly the manner of its dis- 
appearance in the mother country. From the time of the Tudors 
down to the Revolution of 1688, the King's right to refuse his 
assent to bills of Parliament was practically unquestioned. 

The Stuarts, instead of vetoing bills, generally preferred lightly 

^ This custom grew up in the reign of Henry VI. Hallam, Middle Ages (N. Y. 
1869), HI, 89, and note 3. 

'^ Hearn, Government of England, 58. 
^ Post, §§ 7, 8, 9, 10, II. 



1 6 Veto Pozvcr: — Genesis. [Ch. i. 

to assent to laws which they intended to dispose of by the power 
of dispensation or of suspension ; although James I, in assenting 
to all the measures passed in Parliament in 1606, explained that 
he did so " as a special token of grace and favor, being a matter 
unusual to pass all acts without exception. "^ Charles I, however, 
was more outspoken in his opposition to Parliament. His evasive 
approval of the Petition of Right ^ was practically an attempt to 
extend the principle of the powers of dispensation and suspension ; 
while his refusal to assent to the Militia Bill,^ and other ordi- 
nances, is considered by Mr. Hallam one of the direct causes 
of the Revolution of 1643.* Parliament afterwards gave the 
Militia Bill the force of law without the King's signature ; ^ a fact 
which may have been in the minds of the Massachusetts Consti- 
tutional Convention when, in 1780, they gave to the governor the 
suspensi-ve~_^to which was afterwards adopted by the Federal 
Convention. 

From 1688 the veto was used more circumspectly, although it 
was still active down through the reign of William III.^ After 
his death, the royal assent to a bill was refused only once. In 
the sixth year of the reign of Queen Anne '' a bill was passed for 
settling the militia of that part of Great Britain called Scotland. 
It became known to the Queen and her advisers that the Pre- 
tender was on his way to Scotland, and it was therefore thought 
nnwise to carry out the measures proposed by the bill. As the 
bill had not yet gone through the formality of presentation for the 
royal signature, the Queen, under advice, refused her assent to it 
rather than to wait for repeal. From that time to this, no sov- 

1 Hearn, Government of England, 6i. 

2 1628. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, 544-545. 

3 February 16, 1642. 

* Hallam, Constitutional History of England (6 ed.), I, 554, 559; Bright, History 
of England, II, 658. For the text of the veto of the Militia Bill, see Parliamentary 
History, II, 1077, 1 106-7, "1°- 

5 The words used in assenting to a bill were and are " Soit droit fait comme est 
desire," or " Le roy le veult," or " Soit fait comme il est desire." May, Law, Privileges, 
etc., of Parliament, 6th ed., p. 496. A veto was expressed in the words " le roy 
s'avisera." 

^ Macaulay refers to at least four bills which William III refused to sign. Macaulay, 
History of England, IV, 183, 371, 479, 687. Dr. William Everett speaks of two more 
vetoes by W^illiam III. Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Second 
Series, V, 160 (January, 1890). 

■^ 1708. Ibid., Second Series, V, 159 (January, 1890). 



§§ 6, 7-] Disappearance of the Veto in E7igland. 17 

ereign of England has vetoed a bill of Parliament. Mr. Bagehot 
puts the case in a graphic though exaggerated form when he 
says that the Queen " must sign her own death-warrant if the 
two Houses send it to her."^ Bills have been defeated by the 
announcement that the Sovereign would consider its promoters 
unfriendly ; they have been defeated by royal influence or royal 
bribes, but never since J 708 has the signature of the Sovereign 
been refused to a measure which has obtained a majority of both 
Houses of Parliament. 

§ 7- T^6 veto po-wer in the American Colonies. — At the time 
of the constitutional struggle in England between the Crown and 
the representatives of the people, English colonies were growing 
up in America. And here both the Crown and the royal gov- 
ernors exercised with great vigor and inflexibility the power which 
was gradually disappearing in the mother country. 

From the earliest times, the power to establish colonies was 
admitted to be a royal prerogative ; the King alone could form or 
sanction colonial constitutions, and by the King, except in the 
two colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut, the governors were 
appointed. In each of the thirteen colonies which later revolted, 
the governor could, under charter, proprietary grant or royal 
instructions, veto any measure of the legislature ; and in each of 
the colonies, except proprietary Maryland and the charter colonies 
of Rhode Island and Connecticut, the King could prevent a 
bill from becoming a law, even after it had been approved by 
the governor. In all cases where the veto was exercised it was 
absoluje.^ 

The King used his power over the Colonial legislatures with 
great freedom, and a bill which was obnoxious to any interest 
or policy of the mother country was almost sure to be vetoed 
promptly. Indeed, the disallowance of Colonial acts was a part 
of the system of controlling the Colonies for the advantage of the 
mother country which made reconciliation impossible. As an 
illustration, which could be easily multiplied not only from the 
history of Virginia, but from that of the other Colonies,^ it may be 
noted that by this process were annulled the acts of the Virginia 

1 Bagehot, English Constitution, 83. - Elliot, Debates, IV, 620. 

* Documents relating to the Colonial History of the State of New York, V, 157, 
158, 529. Quincy, History of Harvard University, I, 77, contains an account of the 
veto of the Colonial act of 1692, granting a charter to Harvard College. 



1 8 Veto Power- : — Genesis. [Ch. i. 

legislature restricting the slave-trade.^ In fact, the abuse of the 
veto power by the Crown was so universally felt that the first 
clause in the Declaration of Independence set forth as a reason 
for the separation of the Colonies from the mother country : 
" He [the King] has refused his assent to laws most wholesome 
and necessary for the public good." 

More distasteful to the people even than the abuse of the royal 
veto was the abuse of the Governor's veto. In Maryland, indeed, 
the governor's right to veto was not admitted by the Burgesses. 
None of the gther colonies went quite so far ; but in all, save Con- 
necticut and Rhode Island, where governors were chosen by the 
people for a single year,^ and could not be expected to take a firm 
stand against popular measures, there were loud complaints because 
the governors refused to allow acts of the legislature to become 
laws. Nor was the feeling groundless. In many of the colonies the 
governor was sent over seas, with little sympathy for his people. 
In all he was bound to regard the instructions of the Lords of Trade. 
When conflicts with the legislatures arose, the governor made use of 
the veto power to secure grants or even the payment of his salary. 
Franklin says that in Pennsylvania "it became at last a regular 
practice to have orders on the treasury in his (the governor's) 
name presented along with bills to be signed, so that he might 
actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. "^^^ 

§ 8. The veto power in the first State constitutions. — In view 
of the use to which the King and the royal governors put the veto 
power, it is hardly to be wondered that, in the state governments 
which were formed after the breaking out of hostilities with Eng- 
land, this power was greatly limited. In several states a commis- 
sion took the place of a governor. In no state but Massachusetts 

1 Bancroft, United States (last revision), II, 77. 

2 Arnold, History of Rhode Island, I, 202; Bancroft, United States (last ed.), I, 272. 

3 Elliot, Debates, IV, 621. Examples of vetoes by royal governors may be found in 
Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York, IV, pp. 426, 536. In Quincy, 
History of Harvard University, I, 302-305, is an account of a bill presented by the. 
General Court of Massachusetts June, 1722, altering the constitution of the Corporation 
of Harvard College. Gov. Shute returned it with the following conditional approval : 
" I consent to these votes provided the Rev. Mr. Benjamin Wadsworth and the Rev. Mr. 
Benjamin Colman and the Rev. Mr. Appleton are not removed by said orders, but still 
remain Fellows of the Corporation." The House declared that the proviso " has a ten- 
dency to defeat entirely the design and purpose of these votes"; but Shute carried his 
point. 



§§ 7-9-] Colonies and Early States. 19 

did the governor have even a quahfied veto on the acts of the 
legislature ; ^ and in that state the governor was not given this 
qualified veto until the constitution of 1780 was adopted.^ 

§ 9. The veto power under the Articles of Confederation. — The 
fear of executive power which was so evident in the State Conven- 
tions at this time, was even more plainly to be seen in the Articles 
of Confederation. Under the national government thereby estab- 
lished there was not even so much as an executive commission, 
except the " Committee of States " which managed the affairs of 
the nation during the time that Congress was not in session, and 
other minor committees appointed and controlled by Congress. In 
such a form of government it is hardly necessary to say that there 
was no executive veto. In fact, the Articles went to the other 
extreme and granted to five states, and in some cases to a single 
State, the authority which was so feared in the executive : for the 
assent of nine of the thirteen States was required to all important 
acts, and unanimous assent was required to Amendments to the 
Articles, This latter provision in practice resembled very nearly 
the "liberum veto " of the Polish diet, and the principle which was 
thus recognized, namely, that a single State could declare an act 

1 Hildreth, United States, III, 377. 

2 The provision in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 is as follows (Chap. I, Sec. 
I, Art. II) : "No bill or resolve of the senate or house of representatives shall become 
law, and have force as such, until it shall have been laid before the governor for his 
revisal : and if he, upon such revision, approve thereof, he shall signify his approbation 
by signing the same. But if he have any objection to the passing of such bill or resolve, 
he shall return the same, together with his objections thereto, in writing, to the senate, 
or house of representatives, in whichsoever the same shall have originated, who shall 
enter the objections sent down by the governor, at large, on their records, and proceed 
to reconsider the said bill or resolve; but if, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the 
said senate or house of representatives shall, notwithstanding the said objections, agree 
to pass the same, it shall, together with the objections, be sent to the other branch of the 
legislature, where it shall also be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of the 
members present, shall have the force of law; but in all such cases the vote of both 
houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the persons voting for or 
against the said bill shall be entered upon the public records of the Commonwealth. 

" And in order to prevent unnecessary delays, if any bill or resolve shall not be returned 
by the Governor within five days after it shall have been presented, the same shall have 
the force of law." — Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 960. 

The fact that this provision is so similar to the one in the United States Constitution, 
taken in connection with the fact that Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts introduced the resolve 
in the Federal Convention upon which the veto power was based, leads almost inevitably 
to the conclusion that the national provision as to the veto power is but an improved 
copy of this early Massachusetts provision. 



, 20 Veto Power : — Genesis. [Ch. i. 

of the National Legislature null and void, if the State set up the 
plea of unconstitutionality, bore unpleasant fruit in 1798-9, in 
1832, and again in i860. 

§ 10. The veto power in the Federal Convention. — The whole 
machinery of the government under the Articles of Confederation 
was so defective that after six years' experience it became evident 
that a change must be made. The Constitutional Convention met 
at Philadelphia, made the change, and the change restored the veto 
power. 

In the deliberations of the Convention it was early admitted 
that a national executive was a necessity, and, with some reluc- 
tance, that this executive should be endowed with the veto power. 
There was, however, a great difference of opinion as to the degree 
of the power. Should it be absolute or qualified } If the latter, 
what number of votes in each house of Congress should be required 
to override the veto ? Should the power be exclusively vested in 
the President, or should it be entrusted to the President jointly 
with some other department of the government } These and other 
questions of a like nature arose and were settled by the Philadel- 
phia Convention. 

The matter was first brought up on May 29, 1787, when, in the 
series of resolves introduced by Randolph of Virginia, appeared the 
following clause r^ "The executive and a convenient number of 
the national judiciary ought to compose a Council of Revision, 
with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature 
before it shall operate and every act of a particular legislature 
before a negative thereon shall be final ; and the dissent of the said 
Council shall amount to a rejection unless the act of the National 
legislature be again passed, or that of a particular legislature be 

again negatived by of the members of each branch." Mr. 

Randolph's views in this matter may have been based on a sugges- 
tion made in a letter written to him by Mr. Madison a few weeks 
previous. Mr. Madison proposed a negative by the national gov- 
ernment of the same nature " in all cases whatsoever, on the legis- 
lative acts of the States, as the King of Great Britain heretofore 
had." 2 

1 Randolph plan, § 8, in Elliot, Debates, IV, 622. 

2 Elliot, Debates, IV, 623; V, 108. The plan here suggested has been adopted in the 
Dominion of Canada, British North America Act, Art. 90. 



§§ 9-10.] The CoTtfederatiofi and Federal Convention. 21 

The so-called Pinckney plan contains a veto clause much as we 
have it now.^ The only other scheme of government of any impor- 
tance which was introduced at this time was the "Jersey Plan"; 
but as it had no executive, there was no provision for a veto. 

The main discussion in regard to the veto power centred around 
the resolve of Mr. Randolph. On June 4, Mr. Gerry of Massachu- 
setts moved to amend Randolph's resolve so that it should read : 
" that the national executive shall have a right to negative any leg- 
islative act which shall not afterwards be passed by parts of 

each branch of the National Legislature." ^ Hamilton, with his 
characteristic zeal for a strong central government, moved to strike 
out the last fifteen words of the Amendment, but the motion was 
unanimously rejected.^ At this point Franklin attempted to have 
a suspensive veto substituted for a negative veto, but the attempt 
failed.* The blank in Gerry's substitute resolve was then filled by 
the words "two-thirds," and the whole resolution was adopted by. a 
vote of eight states to two.^ The resolution allowed the President 
to retain bills for seven days, and did not apply to joint resolutions, 
orders, or votes. Later on, the plan was changed so that the Presi- 
dent could retain a bill for ten days, and could veto joint-resolutions, 
orders, and votes as well as bills.^ 

On June i8th Hamilton introduced his scheme of government 
which entrusted the executive with an absolute veto on both state 
and national legislation.'^ The scheme was too pronounced to have 
any chance of acceptance in the Convention, and was at once 
rejected. 

On August 15th Madison brought up for the third time the 
question of including the judges of the Supreme Court with the 
President in the exercise of the veto power. The plan was one 
the success of which Madison apparently had very much at heart, 
but it was defeated.^ Two reasons seem to have led to this result. 
In the first place, it was considered that the judges who were to 
be the interpreters of the law "might receive an improper bias 

1 Elliot, Debates, IV, 622. 2 ibid., IV, 623. 

3 Ibid., IV, 623. * Ibid., IV, 623. 

SMass., N. Y., Penn., Del., Va., N. Car., vS. Car., Ga., voted "aye." Conn., Md., 
voted "no.'' — Madison Papers, II, 791. 

6 Ibid., Ill, 1548. ^ Elliot, Debates, IV, 632, 

8 The vote stood: Aye, 3 States — Del., Md., Va.; No, 8 States — N.H., Mass., 
Conn., N. J., Pa., N. Car., S. Car., Ga. Madison, Papers, III, 1333. 



22 Veto Pozver : — Genesis. [Ch. i. 

from having given a previous opinion in a revisionary capacity." ^ 
In the second place, it was deemed wise to keep the judiciary as 
far removed as possible from any connection with political schemes 
which the President might wish to bring forward or influence either 
by his approval or disapproval of legislation. The Convention acted 
wisely in rejecting Madison's proposal, and the experience of a 
century has shown how fortunate was their decision. It is cer- 
tainly a dangerous thing "to place the judges in a position to be 
either corrupted or influenced by the executive." ^ 

One of the curious incidents of the discussion of the veto power 
in the Convention was the fluctuation of opinion regarding the 
proportion of votes in each branch of Congress which should be 
necessary to override an executive veto, August 15, on motion 
of Mr. Wilson, it was decided by a vote of six states to four, to 
change it from two-thirds to three-fourths;^ on September 12th, 
this decision was exactly reversed by an exactly similar vote of six 
states to four, made on the motion of Mr. Wilson.* The reason 
which he assigned for his change of front was that the three- 
fourths rule gave the President too much power. Mr. Madison 
pointed out that when the three-fourths rule was adopted the Presi- 
dent was to be elected by the legislature, and for seven years, but 
that since that time a change had been made, and he was now to 
be elected by the people, and for four years.^ Partly on account 
of these circumstances Mr. Madison favored the retention of the 
three-fourths requirement.^ 

§ II. The veto clause in the Constitution of the United States. 
— Such is, in brief, the history of the veto as it appears in the 
Constitution of the United States. The scope of the present work 
precludes more than a mere outline of the origin of the power, — 
a sketch of a growth to which a volume might profitably be de- 
voted. Before passing to the discussion of the veto messages of 
the Presidents of the United States, which will occupy the body 
of the work, the result of the deliberations of the Convention 
should be stated. Article I, section 7, §§ 2 and 3 of the Consti- 
tution, reads as follows : " 2. Every bill which shall have passed 

1 Story, Commentaries, § 886. 2 Story, Commentaries, § 886. 

3 Elliot, Debates, V, 431 

* Ibid., V, 536. 5 Elliot, Debates, V, 538. 

s Had the three-fourths ratio been retained, few bills would have been passed over 
the veto. See § 116. 



§§ 10, II,] TJie Veto Clause in the Constitution. 23 

the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it 
become a law, be presented to the President of the United States ; 
if he approve, he shall sign it ; but if not, he shall return it, with 
his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who 
shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to 
reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that 
house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with 
the objections, to the other house, by which it shall be likewise 
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall 
become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall 
be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons 
voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of 
each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the 
President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have 
been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as 
if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment pre- 
vent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 

" Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of 
the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except 
on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President 
of the United States ; and before the same shall take effect, shall 
be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed 
by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, accord- 
ing to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill." 



CHAPTER II. 

VETOES AFFECTING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 

§ 12. Executive methods of treating a bill. 

§ 13. Classification of the vetoes. 

§ 14. Vetoes affecting the form of the national Legislature. 

§ 15. Vetoes affecting the form of the national Judiciary. 

§ 16. General effect of vetoes considered in this chapter. 

§ 12. Executive methods of treating a bill. — There are five 
ways in which a President of the United States may treat a 
bill which has duly passed both houses of Congress and has 
been presented to him : i. In the first place, he may sig^n it, 
and in this case, the bill at once becomes a law. 2. Or if he 
is not satisfied with a bill, but nevertheless considers it inadvisa- 
ble to veto it, he may sign it, and at the same time send to Con- 
gress a protest against those provisions in the measure of which 
he disapproves. This is a method of treating a bill which is not 
recognized by the Constitution. 3. Again, if a bill be presented 
to the President more than ten days before the close of a session 
of Congress, he may leave it unsigned ; in this case in ten days it 
becomes a law without his signature. 4. If a measure be pre- 
sented to the executive within ten days of the end of a session of 
Congress, and he fails to sign it, the bill- does not become a law. 
This method of dealing with bills is the well-known "pockejirveto." 
5. Lastly, a President may veto a bill ; that is, may refuse to sign 
it, and send his reasons for such refusal to Congress.^ Of course, 
if a bill has been presented within ten days of the end of a session, 
simple withholding of the President's signature kills it ; but in 
many such cases the President has preferred to return the bill at 
once with his objections. 

In the discussion to follow, and in the Appendices, every formal 
veto message, and all formal protests have been included, but no 
attempt has been made to sift out of the mass of abortive legisla- 

1 Constitution, Art. I, sec. vii, §§ 2 and 3. Quoted, ante, § il. 
[24] 



§§ I2-I4- Methods of Treating Bills and Classification. 25 

tion the many bills which have failed for want of approval, and 
have never been referred to by the executive in his communica- 
tions to Congress. 

§ 13. Classification of the vetoes. — Before beginning the exami- 
nation of the vetoes themselves, a word in explanation of their 
classification may be proper. All measures of Congress relate 
either to the form of the government or to the exercise of its 
powers. All the vetoes may therefore be conveniently divided 
into two corresponding classes. The classes will be considered 
in the order mentioned above, partly because it is natural to 
consider the form of a government before its powers, and partly 
because the vetoes of the second class are the more numerous and 
important. 

Attempts at radical changes of the form of government have 
usually appeared in Congress as resolutions to amend the Con- 
stitution, and consequently the first class of vetoes is small. For 
resolutions to submit amendments do not require the assent of the 
President. The great majority of Congressional measures which 
have required the assent of the President have had reference to 
the scope of the powers granted by the Constitution, and it is under 
this head that we find the greatest number of vetoes. Within the 
various classes and sub-classes into which the vetoes have been 
divided the order in the discussion will be chronological. 

§ 14. Vetoes affecting the form of the national Legislature. — 
The first bill vetoed under the Constitution was one authorizing a 
change in the form of the legislative branch of the government. 
In 1792 a bill passed Congress entitled, "An Act for an Appor- 
tionment of Representatives among the several States." April 5, 
1792, President Washington vetoed the bill in a message addressed 
to the ** Gentlemen of the House of Representatives," and signed 
simply " G. Washington."^ 

The reasons given for the veto were as follows : " First. The 
Constitution has prescribed that Representatives shall be appor- 
tioned among the several States according to their respective num- 
bers ; and there is no proportion or divisor which, applied to the 
respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allot- 

1 See Appendix A, No. i. See also Hildreth, History of the United States, IV, 303; 
Schouler, History of the United States, I, 1S9; John C. Hamilton, Life of Alexander 
Hamilton, IV, 334; Writings of Thomas Jefferson, VII, 594, IX, 115; Writings of James 
Madison, I, 544-546, 549. 55°' 552, 554- 



26 Veto Power : — - Form of Govern-ment. [Ch. ii. 

ment of Representatives proposed by the bill. Second. The Con- 
stitution has also provided that the number of Representatives 
shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand : which restriction 
is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be 
applied to the separate and respective numbers of the States ; and 
this bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for every 
thirty thousand." The President sent this message to Congress 
only after the most anxious thought. In Mr. Jefferson's diary ^ is 
to be found a most interesting account of the matter. The vote 
on the bill had been a sectional one, the North favoring and the 
South opposing the measure. Washington expressed to Mr. Jef- 
ferson the fear lest his veto should be considered as favoring the 
South, and also lest the Union should be dissolved on account 
of the sectional feehng which was beginning to show itself, — a 
foreboding which would seem to denote a deep insight into the 
future development of political questions. Mr. Jefferson reassured 
the President, and advised him to veto the bill. Influenced by this 
advice, and by his own strong feeling that the apportionment was 
unconstitutional, the President refused to sign the bill, and sent 
his reasons for that refusal to Congress. 

The only other instance of the use of the veto power to preserve 
the form of the legislative branch of the government occurred in 
Jackson's administration. May 31, 1836, a bill passed Congress 
which provided that in the future Congress should assemble on the 
first Monday in November and should adjourn on the second Mon- 
day in May.2 The President vetoed the measure ^ on the ground 
that no Congress had the power to fix the time of adjournment for 
future Congresses. Jackson based his statement upon the fourth 
clause of the fifth section of the first article of the Constitution, 
which declares " that neither house, during the session of Congress, 
shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three 
days, nor to any other place than that in which the two houses 
shall be sitting." The President also quoted, as a reason for his 
opposition, the clause in the Constitution which authorizes the 
executive to adjourn Congress in case the two houses cannot agree 
upon a day for adjournment. 

When the veto message came up in the Senate, Clay, Webster, 

1 Elliot, Debates, IV, 624. 

^Congressional Debates, XII, Part II, 1649. 

3 Appendix A, No. 20. 



§§ 14, I5-] TJie Legislative Department. zy 

Calhoun, Clayton, and others opposed it.^ Mr. Goldsborough, one 
of the opponents, argued ^ that the clause upon which the veto was 
founded ^ referred to temporary adjournments of either house pend- 
ing the adjournment of the session, but not to the close of the ses- 
sion. Furthermore, he pointed out that, granting the President's 
statement that one Congress could not fix the time of adjournment 
for future Congresses, it should have no weight in the present case, 
since the bill particularly provided that future Congresses might 
adjourn at any other time than that set down in the act, if only 
both houses should agree to the change. Mr. Goldsborough's criti- 
cism seems just. Jackson's conclusion can hardly be drawn from 
his premises, and even if his argument were unassailable, his objec- 
tion would hardly apply to the bill he was vetoing. 

§ 15. Vetoes affecting the form of the national Judiciary. — The 
veto has been called into use to protect not only the form of Con- 
gress, but also the form of the national judiciary, and the attempted 
changes in this latter department which have not met with execu- 
tive approval have been of no greater importance than those which 
related to Congress. 

The first of these judiciary vetoes was interposed by President 
Madison, April 3, 1812, to a bill entitled: "An act providing for 
the trial of causes pending in the respective District Courts of the 
United States, in case of the absence or disability of the judges 
thereof." ^ The bill was intended primarily to give relief to the dis- 
trict courts of New York State, which were some seven hundred 
cases behind in their work. The President refused his assent to 
the bill for four reasons, the most important of them being as fol- 
lows. In the first place, the new district judges contemplated by 
the act were to be the Supreme Court judges, who were already 
Circuit Court judges. The law allowed appeals from the district to 
the circuit courts. But as the act contemplated making the same 
man both circuit and district judge, the President thought that the 
advantage of an appeal would be lost. In the second place, the act 
left it with the President to determine when it should be necessary 
for the justices of the Supreme Court to perform the duties of 
District Court justices. Mr. Madison very wisely considered that 
this was "an unsuitable relation of members of the judiciary 

1 Congressional Debates, XII, Part II, 1859. 

2 Ibid., XII, Part II, 1878. 

3 Art. I, Sec. V, § 4. * Appendix A, No. 5. 



28 Veto Power: — For7n of Government. [Ch. ii. 

department to a discretionary authority of the executive depart- 
ment." Lastly, the President vetoed the bill because it virtually 
appointed the justices of the Supreme Court to new offices, thereby 
usurping a power which belonged to the executive branch of the 
government.^ The President's objections were evidently consid- 
ered sound, for the Senate sustained the veto by a large vote.^ 

December 14, 1842, President Tyler sent to the House of Rep- 
resentatives his reasons for the " pocket veto " at the last session 
of Congress of a bill entitled : " An act regulating the taking of 
testimony in cases of contested elections, and for other purposes."^ 
Mr. Tyler did not sign the bill, because it had been presented to 
him so near the end of the session that he could not find time to 
read it through before Congress adjourned. 

The practice of deluging the President in the last moments of 
a session of Congress with bills requiring his signature is very in- 
jurious to the interests of good legislation. Little or no time can 
be given to the consideration of each act, and as a result, bills 
become laws which even a slight examination would cause to be 
rejected.* Under such circumstances, a President would be justi- 
fied in refusing to sign a measure of which he knew nothing. In 
the case under consideration, the President's failure to approve 
may have come wholly from an unwillingness to sign a measure of 
whose provisions he was ignorant. But the great care with which 
Mr. Tyler elaborates his reason for the veto raises a suspicion that 
he objected less to the time of presentation than to the measure 
itself. In the last paragraph of the message he betrays such 
knowledge of the provisions of the bill as to show that he had 
spent much time upon it after the adjournment of Congress. 

January 22, 1873, the veto was again made use of to preserve 
the form of the judiciary. On that day, President Grant refused 
to sign a bill entitled : " An act in relation to new trials in the 
Court of Claims." ^ The purpose of this act was to modify an 
existing act of Congress which allowed the government to suspend 
payment for two years on judgments obtained against it in the 

1 Post, § 16. 2 Appendix A, No. 5. ^ Appendix A, No. 27, 

* President Cleveland stated to Mr. Kenna in February, 1S88, that he had received 
one hundred bills at the end ,of the preceding session, one of which, an important appro- 
priation bill, he had not had time even to read. — MS. letter of Senator G. F. Hoar to 
Professor Hart, Feb. 11, i888. 
^ Appendix A, No. 87. 



§ 150 The JiLdiciary Department. 29 

Court of Claims. If evidence came to light within that time which 
showed the claim to be unjust, the United States could move for a 
new trial. The privilege of suspending judgment was only exer- 
cised in doubtful cases where fraud was suspected. The act under 
consideration reduced the time during which the government could 
suspend payment from two years to six months. The President 
refused to sanction the bill, on the ground that, by reducing the 
time during which judgment was suspended, it greatly increased 
the opportunities for defrauding the government. On the other 
hand, he pointed out that perfectly good claims would gain nothing 
by the new law, since, under the old law, claims which were evi- 
dently meritorious were settled without delay. The President's 
message was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and 
ordered to be printed ; but no attempt was ever made to pass the 
bill over the veto. 

May 26, 1876, President Grant vetoed a bill entitled: "An act 
providing for the recording of deeds, mortgages, and other con- 
veyances affecting real estate in the District of Columbia." ^ The 
bill was vetoed because it was drawn with such indefiniteness and 
uncertainty that it would lead to serious complications in regard 
to transfers of real estate, if it should become a law. 

Only once since President Grant's administration has the execu- 
tive refused to sign a bill affecting the national judiciary. March 
6, 1878, President Hayes vetoed a bill entitled: "An act to au- 
thorize a special term of the Circuit Court of the United States for 
the southern district of Mississippi, to be held at Scranton, in Jack- 
son County." 2 The President objected to the bill for two reasons. 
In the first place, because the time between the passage of the bill 
and the proposed session of the Circuit Court was not sufficient to 
allow the notice of the extra term to be published in the manner 
contemplated by the bill. In the second place, because although 
the United States was interested in forty-nine of the suits which 
it was proposed to bring in the extra term, it was shown that the 
government could not prepare for trial on such short notice, since 
no fund appropriated by Congress could be made available for that 
purpose. When the message was read in the House there was a 
little desultory debate as to just how many cases the proposed court 
would have to try. Then the veto was referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary, and no further action was taken by Congress. 

1 Appendix A, No. loo. 2 ibid., No. 118. 



30 Veto Power: — Form of Government. Ch. ii. 

§ 1 6. General effect of vetoes considered in this chapter. — 

The vetoes already considered, although few in number, are the 
only ones in our history which have directly protected the form of 
the government. The executive has frequently disagreed with Con- 
gress as to the powers which the Constitution has granted to Con- 
gress and to the States, and in some of the clauses of that docu- 
ment different meanings have been attached to almost every word ; 
but though there have been differences in regard to the nature of 
the instrument, there have been few attempts essentially to change 
the form of government established under it. This is the more 
remarkable when it is remembered that Congress had a very large 
share in fixing the form of government, the outlines of which alone 
were settled by the Constitution. Indeed, only one of the unsuc- 
cessful attempts at change which we have just examined was of 
any constitutional importance. This was the apportionment bill 
that Washington vetoed : a bill which did seem to threaten in some 
degree the constitutional method of assigning representatives. But 
even this attack on the form of the legislature was probably un- 
intentional. The other vetoes were called out either because the 
proposed legislation seemed inexpedient, or because it seemed 
corrupt. Jackson to be sure tried to base his veto of the bill 
regulating the length of the sessions of Congress on constitutional 
grounds, but he hardly made out his case. 

In summing up this comparatively unimportant branch of the 
subject, we may say that the vetoes included here do not stand for 
any great constitutional principles, nor even for any connected 
policy of mere expediency, but are isolated endeavors of the execu- 
tive to prevent the legislature from passing useless, or worse than 
useless, laws. 



CHAPTER III. 

VETOES AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE 
POWERS OF GOVERNMENT 

§ 17. Classification of vetoes in this chapter. 

§ 18. Executive claims to legislative power supported by the veto. 
§ 19. The Bank veto. 
§ 20. Removal of the deposits. 
§ 21. Vetoes for the protection of the executive from legislative encroachment. 
§ 22. Power over foreign affairs : the treaty power. 

§ 23. Establishment of consular and diplomatic ofiices. 
§ 24. Diplomatic intercourse. 
§ 25. The power of appomtment. 

§ 36. Requiring names of candidates for appointment. 
§ 27. Requiring papers relative to removals from office. 
§ 28. The Tenure of Office Act. 
§ 29. The Fitz-John Porter Bill. 
§ 30- Protest for the protection of the President's A^ar power. 
§ 31. Protest and veto for the protection of the President's personal rights 
under the Constitution. 
§ 32. Covode Investigation. 
§ 33. The President's salary. 
§ 34. Use of the veto in controversies arising out of the Civil War. 
§ 35. Riders on appropriation bills. 
§ 36. General effect of the vetoes for the protection of the Executive. 

§ 1 7. Classification of vetoes in this chapter. — The second of 
the two great divisions into which the vetoes have been separated 
includes those vetoes which concern either the distribution or the 
exercise of the powers of government. The vetoes relating to the 
distribution of powers will be taken up in the present chapter ; 
those relating to the exercise of po.wers will be considered in Chap- 
ter IV. 

On each of the three branches of the government has been con- 
ferred a separate authority, a distinct portion of the power which 
the people ceded to the national government. As between the 
legislature and judiciary, and between the judiciary and executive, 
the distribution has generally been acquiesced in,^ or at least such 

1 President Jackson in the bank veto, however, claimed power belonging to the 
Supreme Court. Post, §§ 19, 57. 

£31] 



32 Veto Power : — Distribution of Powers. [Ch. iii. 

contentions as have occurred have not given rise to vetoes. But 
the distribution as between the executive and the legislative de- 
partments has not been undisputed. Congress has at various times 
attempted, either consciously or unconsciously, to usurp power 
belonging to the President, and many of these attempts have been 
frustrated by the veto. The wisdom of the Convention in provid- 
ing a veto is thus vindicated ; for one of the main objects of the 
power was that the President might protect his office from legisla- 
tive encroachment. 

Since the President has no definite power of initiative in legis- 
lation, and absolutely no power of amendment, it is evident that 
the veto cannot be used as a means of positive encroachment on 
the powers of Congress. It was intended as a means of defence, 
not as an instrument of attack. It is therefore remarkable that 
the first case of the use of the veto in any contest over the dis- 
tribution of power between the President and Congress was a case 
of executive aggression. 

S l8. Executive claims to legislative povrer supported by the 
veto. — Jackson's bank veto is the one instance in our history 
where the veto has been used to convey a counter-proposition to 
Congress. In this case the President used the power less as a 
protection of the executive against an attack from Congress than 
as a cover for an attack by the executive against Congress. 

§ 19. The Bank veto. — The Second United States Bank, which 
had been chartered in 18 16 for a term of twenty years, applied, in 
1832, for a new charter, and a bill for this purpose passed Congress 
on July 3, 1832.1 On the tenth of the same month it was vetoed 
by President Jackson. ^ The financial side of the veto will be 
considered in another place.^ Here we must consider the new and 
strange doctrines as to executive power advanced in the message. 

The President first offered the novel suggestion that if he had 
been called upon he could have laid before Congress a measure to 
which no objection would have been made. This plan of waiting 
for the President's draft of a proposed law does not seem at all in 

1 A laborious search in the printed records of the government and in newspapers 
fails to disclose the text of this bill. 

2 Appendix A, No. 14; Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, 11, 
31-75; Schouler, Flistory of the United States, IV, 44-54, 68-70, 132-147; Sumner, 
Jackson, Chapters XI-XIV; Parton, Jackson, Chapters XX, XXIX, XXX. 

3 Post, § 57. 



§§ I7-20.] Executive Claims to Legislative Power. 33 

keeping with the Constitution, which delegates legislative power 
to Congress, reserving to the President only a qualified veto. Jack- 
son's claim was in effect that he should have had a hand in the 
details of the law, or in other words, that he should have initiated 
the legislation. 1 

But the President went further, and in the face of an act of 
Congress, duly approved by President Madison, and of a decision 
of the Supreme Court,^ declared the new charter unconstitu- 
tional. The position was based not on a fundamental constitutional 
objection to the chartering of the bank, but on his individual opin- 
ion that some other provisions might have better served the pur- 
pose for which the bill was drawn. Dr. Von Hoist states the case 
forcibly but in a much exaggerated form when he says : " The 
Supreme Court of the Union has its own Constitutional law ; each 
President has his own ; each new majority in Congress its own ; 
and the public law of the Union is in principle the chaos of law, 
and the decision of a question of law lies outside the realm of 
possibility." ^ 

It would be difficult and useless to attempt to trace all the 
remote consequences to which these principles of Jackson's would 
lead. It is enough for the present purpose to notice that the 
President laid claim to a power of initiative which belonged to 
Congress, and that the veto was used to fortify and defend this 
claim. 

§ 20. Removal of the deposits. — In pursuance of the policy 
outlined in the bank veto of July 10, 1832, Jackson, through his 
Secretary of the Treasury, Taney, in September, 1833, ordered 
the removal of the government's deposits from the United States 
Bank. The order led to the famous Senate resolution,^ censuring 
the President, and to his equally famous protest ^ against the cen- 
sure. While this protest is not legally a veto, it had many of the 
effects of a veto, and is intimately connected with the question we 
are considering ; for the protest was used by the executive to for- 
tify the position taken in the veto of the Bank Bill, and to lay claim 
on behalf of the executive to still greater power. 

1 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, II, 45. 

2 McCulloch V. State of Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 423; 3 Stats, at Large, 266. 

3 Constitutional History of the United States, II, 49. 
* Debates of Congress, Vol. X, Part I, 58. 

^ Appendix B, No. I. 



34 Veto Power: — Distribiition of Powers. [Ch. iii, 

Jackson defended the removal of the deposits on the ground 
that the placing of government funds in the bank was discretion- 
ary with the Secretary of the Treasury ; furthermore, the President 
maintained that, since the treasury was one of the executive depart- 
ments, the President had full authority to control the Secretary, 
and therefore to direct the removal of the deposits on his own 
responsibility. In both particulars the action of the President was 
open to exception. 

In the first place, let us examine the Secretary of the Treasury's 
authority to remove the deposits at his discretion. The Secretary's 
power in the matter was not unlimited ; for although the wording 
of the statute was very general,^ the meaning was limited. So 
careful and accurate a writer as Mr. Story says that it was gener- 
ally understood that the deposits were not to be removed by the 
Secretary except for " high and important reasons of state, upon 
unexpected emergencies." ^ The Secretary, it is true, may have 
considered that he was face to face with an " unexpected emer- 
gency," but he had no right to make that assumption in the face 
of the favorable report of the bank's condition which had been 
made by a Committee of Congress, many of whom were personally 
opposed to the renewal of the bank charter.-^ In short, the cause 
for the removal of the deposits was not the " unexpected emer- 
gency," but Jackson's personal determination that they should 
not be allowed to remain in the United States Bank. If this was 
not contrary to the letter of the Act of 1816, it was most certainly 
contrary to its spirit ; and an usurpation of Congressional power. 

The further assumption of Jackson that, in case the Secretary 
of the Treasury would not remove the deposits, the President him- 
self could and would undertake the responsibility, was equally 
bold. He supported it by saying that the Constitution had 
conferred all executive authority upon him.* 

1 " The deposits of the money of the United States, in places in which the said bank 
and branches thereof may be established, shall be made in said bank or branches thereof, 
unless the Secretary of the Treasury at any time otherwise order and direct; in which 
case the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately lay before Congress, if in session, 
and if not, immediately after the commencement of the next session, the reason of such 
order or direction." — 3 Stats, at Large, 274. 

^ Life and Letters of Story, II, 156. 

3 Debates of Congress, XI, 605, 638; XII, 191. 

* Dr. Von Hoist sarcastically observes that even if this were true, it could evidently 
only mean " all the executive powers granted by the Constitution, not all authority which 



§§ 20, 21.] Executive Clahns to Legislative Power. 35 

The President, in saying that all executive authority was con- 
ferred upon him, meant that the heads of the different departments 
were responsible to him alone. The claim was contrary to the 
practice of the government ; the office of Secretary of the Treas- 
ury was created by law, his duties defined by law, and his control 
over public money was limited by law. In the case of Marbury v. 
Madison,^ the Supreme Court of the United States had already 
emphatically declared that Congress could impose duties on the 
heads of the executive departments, and that the officers on whom 
such duties were imposed were solely responsible for the per- 
formance of these duties, and were responsible only to the law 
imposing the obligation. This decision directly covers the 
present case ; and even if the heads of the departments were 
in general subject to the will of the chief executive, in the 
particular instance under discussion the President was not war- 
ranted in ordering the removal of the deposits, contrary to the 
will of Congress. 

To sum up : President Jackson, in the first place, gave his own v 
construction to an act of Congress, and it was a construction 
which only a most rigid adherence to the strict letter of the law 
could justify. In the second place, Jackson assumed power over 
the acts of the heads of the departments, which was not granted by 
the Constitution, which had not been conceded by Congress, and 
which had been expressly denied by the Supreme Court of the 
United States in an important decision. It was this stretch of 
prerogative which President Jackson's protest of April 15, 1834, v 
justified and glorified. ^ 

§ 21. Vetoes for the protection of the executive from legislative 
encroachment.^ — None of President Jackson's successors have laid 

should, according to any political theory whatever, or according to any view of any per- 
son whatever, belong to the highest possessor of executive pow.er." — Constitutional His- 
tory of the United States, II, 63. 

1 I Cranch, 165, 166. 

2 One veto should be included at this point which comes properly under the main 
head of vetoes for the protection of the executive, but which cannot be classed under any 
of the following subheads. February 14, 1877, the President vetoed a bill which amended 
the statutes in such a manner that the clerk of the House of Representatives should select 
the newspapers throughout the United States in which the advertising of the executive 
departments should be placed (Appendix A, No. 115). Prior to 1867 this work had 
been done by the heads of the departments. In that year the advertising in ten of the 
States which had seceded was placed in the hands of the clerk of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. The President objected to the bill because it made general and permanent a 



36 Veto Power : — Distribution of Powers. [Ch. Hi. 

claim to the extended executive power asserted by his veto of the 
Bank Bill and his protest against the Senate resolution of cen- 
sure. On the contrary, the executive has generally been satisfied 
to defend himself from the encroachments of Congress, and it is 
interesting to notice that Jackson himself was the first who was 
obliged to contend for his constitutional rights. 

§ 22. Po"wer over foreign affairs: the treaty povyer. — On Octo- 
ber 14, 1832, a treaty between the United States and the Two 
Sicilies was signed, by which the King of the Two Sicilies was to 
pay an indemnity to merchants of the United States whose vessels 
had been destroyed in 1809, 181 1, and 181 2 by ships under the 
control of the Two Sicilies.-^ Certain claimants under this treaty 
petitioned the Senate, December 15, 1834, for an immediate settle- 
ment of the claims against the Two Sicilies at a reduced rate. In 
a word, they wished to discount their claims against the foreign 
government. A bill was drawn in accordance with this petition 
and passed both houses of Congress. It was vetoed by Jackson, 
March 3, 183 5,^ because it authorized "the Secretary of the Treasury 
to compromise the claims allowed by the commissioners under the 
treaty with the King of the Two Sicilies." The President declared 
that the Constitution granted the executive full authority to nego- 
tiate with a foreign power, and Congress need not, in fact could 
not, empower him to act in the matter. 

The compromise which was desired was of course nothing but 
a new treaty with the King of the Two Sicilies ; and as the Presi- 
dent, by and with the consent of the Senate, is empowered by the 
Constitution to make all treaties,^ it certainly would seem to be an 
assumption on the part of Congress to authorize the President to 
enter into negotiations. To be sure, the Senate may amend, and 
has amended, treaties submitted to it;* and it might also, with per- 

provision only intended to be local and temporary; because the law could hardly fail to 
work unsatisfactorily; and because it was an encroachment on the rights of the executive 
departments. Two other vetoes of minor importance call for mention here. One was 
President Tyler's veto of a bill regulating the construction of revenue cutters (Appendix 
A, No. 30). The other was President Buchanan's veto of a resolution increasing the 
speed of mail carriers on certain postal routes (Appendix A, No. 43). Both bills were 
vetoed because, among other reasons, they encroached upon the authority of the. executive. 

^ United States Treaties and Conventions, 855. 

2 Appendix A, No. 19; Senate Journal, 2 sess., 23 Cong., p. 233. 

^ Treaties of all descriptions are included in the grant of power by the Constitution. 
— Story, Commentaries, § 1502. 

* Von Hoist, Constitutional Law, 201. 



§§ 21-23-] Foreign Affairs. 37 

feet propriety, request the President to enter into negotiations with 
a foreign power ; but it is certain that the chief executive would be 
under no obligations whatever to heed the request.^ The Presi- 
dent alone has full power to take the preliminary steps in making 
a treaty, and he derives this power, not from Congress, but directly 
from the Constitution. 

Under these circumstances. President Jackson's treatment of 
the bill under discussion was constitutionally correct. He was 
defending in a constitutional manner a power which constitution- 
ally belongpd to the executive. Had he suffered the action of Con- 
gress to stand, he would have given his sanction to its arrogation 
of authority, and the affair would have become a precedent for 
future Congressional attempts, perhaps more intent than the pres- 
ent one on depriving the President of the treaty-making power. 

§ 23. Establishment of consular and diplomatic offices. — In 
President Grant's administration, Congress again attempted to 
encroach upon the power of the executive in foreign affairs. The 
first of these attempts was met by a strong protest ; the second by 
a veto. August 14, 1876, President Grant signed a bill entitled 
" An act making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic 
services of the government for the year ending June thirtieth, 
eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, and for other purposes " ; but 
in signing the bill he protested against a provision in the act which 
directed that notice be sent to certain diplomatic and consular offi- 
cers to close their offices.^ The President admitted the right of 
Congress to refuse to appropriate money for the salaries of consu- 
lar and other public ministers, but he denied the right of Congress 
to order the closing of any diplomatic or consular offices. This 
claim he based on that section of the Constitution^ which provides 
that the President " shall nominate, and by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors or other pub- 
lic ministers and consuls." The Constitution nowhere makes pro- 
vision for the removal of these officers, and consequently the power 
of removal is vested in the department having the power of appoint- 
ment. This last statement was apparently admitted by all, and 
hence the real contest related to the power of appointment. 

The President's position seems sound and reasonable, yet when 
the protest was read in the House of Representatives, it caused 

^ Von Hoist, Constitutional Law, 202. 

2 Appendix B, No. 8. ^ Art. II, Sec. II, § 2. 



38 Veto Power: — Distribution of Powers. [Ch. iii. 

much discussion. Mr. Holman of Indiana opened the debate, and 
asserted that the House of Representatives could alone close a 
foreign diplomatic office, and his reason for this statement was that 
the foreign diplomatic missions were created, or at least authorized, 
by statute.^ General Garfield then challenged him to name an 
instance in point, — a challenge which Mr. Holman was unable to 
meet. Mr. Tucker of Virginia then took up the argument which 
the " Great Objector " had dropped, and in a much more logical 
way maintained that, while the Constitution authorized the creation 
of diplomatic offices, Congress created them ; that until Congress 
had passed appropriations for the salaries of the various foreign 
diplomatic agents, the President could not appoint them ; that 
Congress must determine how many embassadors, ministers, and 
other diplomatic officers were necessary, and that then it is in the 
executive's power to fill such offices ; that the President's refusal to 
fill offices thus created would be an impeachable offence. In short, 
Mr. Tucker argued that Congress created the diplomatic offices, 
and could therefore destroy them if it saw fit.^ On the other hand, 
it was held by General Garfield, Mr. Lawrence, and others that the 
Constitution created the diplomatic offices, and that it rested 
entirely with the President to appoint men to fill as many such 
offices as he chose. 

The great argument against the protest seemed to be that the 
appropriations for the various offices in some way created the 
offices. This cannot be true, since in the early days of the gov- 
ernment, when it was in the hands of those who drew up the Con- 
stitution, and who presumably knew better than any one else what 
that document meant, a sum in gross was appropriated for the ex- 
penses of the diplomatic service, and it was left to the executive 
to determine the grade of the officers, and the countries to which 
they should be sent.^ The weight of argument would therefore 
seem to be in favor of the President.* The hostility which the 
President's protest provoked shows its necessity, and throws a 
strong light on the encroachments which are constantly and im- 
perceptibly being made by the legislative branch of the government 
upon the executive. 

^ Congressional Record, 44 Cong., i sess., 5684. ^ Ibid., 5686-5688. 

^ Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 402. See also i Stats, 
at Large, 128, 299, 345. 

* The same view is taken by Dr. Von Hoist in his Constitutional Law of the United 
States, 199, note 2. 



§§ 23-25.] Foreign Intercourse. 39 

§ 24. Diplomatic intercourse. — Within a year the President 
was again called upon to protect his authority in foreign affairs. 
December 15, 1876, Mr. Swann introduced into the House, from 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, two resolutions entitled respec- 
tively, "Joint resolution relating to congratulations from the Argen- 
tine Republic," and "Joint resolution in reference to congratula- 
tions from the Republic of Pretoria, South Africa." The resolution 
directed the Secretary of State to convey to the respective nations 
the thanks of Congress for their congratulations. 

These resolutions passed the Senate January 11, 1877, and on 
January 26 they were vetoed.^ The President refused his assent 
to the resolutions because the Constitution vested in the executive 
the reception and conduct of all correspondence with foreign states. 
President Grant based his claim on the clause in the Constitution 
which entrusts to the President solely the reception of " embassa- 
dors and other public ministers,"^ a clause which the President 
correctly considered to include all intercourse with foreign powers. 
If it be claimed that this clause in the Constitution needs sup- 
port in order to sustain the President's position, it is only neces- 
sary to turn to the act of Congress establishing what was then the 
Department of Foreign Affairs, but which is now the Department 
of State.^ The language used in that act gives no countenance 
to the theory that Congress has anything to do with diplomatic 
correspondence. 

Apparently President Grant's protest in regard to closing the 
diplomatic offices had borne good fruit, for there was no discussion 
of the veto in the present case. The message was referred immedi- 
ately to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 1 

§ 25. Vetoes for the protection of the President's power of ap- 
pointment. — Ariiong the cases of legislative encroachment in for- 
eign affairs which have just been examined, the protest against the 

1 Appendix A, No. 112. '^ Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, Sec. 3. 

2 The Secretary of State is to " perform and execute such duties as shall from time 
to time be enjoined or entrusted to him by the President of the United States, agreeable 
to the Constitution, relative to correspondence, commissions, or instructions to or with 
public ministers or consuls from the United States, or to negotiations with public minis- 
ters from foreign states or princes, or to memorials or other applications from foreign 
public ministers or other foreigners, or to such other matters respecting foreign affairs as 
the President of the United States shall assign said department : And furthermore the 
said principal officer (Secretary of State) shall conduct the business of the said depart- 
ment in such manner as the President of the United States shall from time to time order 
or instruct." — i United States Stats, at Large, 28. 



40 Veto Power : — Distribution of Powers. [Ch. iii. 

closing of the consular offices would seem also to relate to the 
power of appointment. But it did not. The objectionable bill 
did not attempt to appoint any one to an office, nor to provide for 
the manner of appointment, nor to remove any one from an office. 
What the bill proposed was to close the office itself ; a principle 
which could not be applied as a general one without stopping the 
wheels of government altogether. 

In a number of other instances, however, the President has 
been obliged directly to protect from an overbearing Congress 
his right of appointing to office. The first case we have already 
considered in the examination of President Madison's veto of the 
act increasing the number of United States district judges. ^ That 
bill in reality appointed the judges of the Supreme Court to the 
new district judgeship, and was thus an unintentional but never- 
theless an undeniable infringement of executive power. 

S 26. Requiring names of candidates for appointment. — The 
next Congressional attempt at usurpation was in President Tyler's 
administration. On February 21, 1842, the House of Representa- 
tives passed a resolution requesting the President and heads of 
the various departments to furnish the House with lists of the 
names of the members of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh 
Congresses who had been applicants for office.^ The President 
refused to comply with the request. This refusal is of course in 
no sense a veto, since resolutions passed by only one of the two 
houses of Congress do not require the President's approval. In 
the present case, however, the refusal of the President to comply 
with the resolution defeated it more effectually than a veto could 
have defeated a bill, since the resolution could not by any majority 
be made effective against the refusal. 

The President supported his action on the ground that the power 
of appointment was conferred on him without reserve or qualifica- 
tion, and that therefore the House of Representatives had no con- 
stitutional right to make its request. It would seem that in making 
this statement the President must have meant the power of nomi- 
nation instead of the power of appointment, since it could hardly 
be maintained that the Senate had no share in the appointment of 
those officers whose confirmation depended upon the consent of 
the Senate.^ 

1 Ante, § II- 

2 Appendix B, No. 3; House Journal, 27 Cong., 2 sess., 421. 

3 Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2, § 2. 



§§ 25-27.] Nominations to Office. 41 

But even if we suppose President Tyler to have meant what he 
said, his argument is forcible ; for under no circumstance could the 
House have a share in the power of appointment to office. The 
power was vested solely with the President and Senate, and so 
long as legal proceedings of impeachment were not pending, any 
body of citizens would have as much right as the House of Repre- 
sentatives to inquire into the reasons for an appointment. But if 
we suppose President Tyler referred to nominations instead of to 
appointments, the case becomes stronger yet ; for even the Senate 
has no right to call upon the executive for his reasons in nominat- 
ing a certain man. It can refuse to confirm the nominee, but that 
is the limit of its power. 

If the call for information about nominations would have had 
no force, the request of the House was even more unjustifiable, 
since it called for the names of those who had applied to the Presi- 
dent for office, whether they were nominated by him or not. The 
fact that the resolution verged on the ridiculous was appreciated 
by some of the representatives ; for, in the debate pending its 
adoption, various amendments were offered, each one of which 
enlarged the scope of the proposal. The last of these amendments 
was offered by Mr. Snyder, and was to the effect that the Presi- 
dent be requested to state whether or not he slept in a four-post 
bed.i This amendment was gravely voted down, but it certainly 
had as broad a basis of constitutional right as the original reso- 
lution. 

§ 27. Requiring papers relative to removals from oflBce. — Closely 
akin to the question just considered is the controversy which arose 
between President Cleveland and the Senate in regard to removals 
from office. 

In July, 1885, George M. Dustin, United States District Attor- 
ney for the Seventh District of Alabama, was removed by the 
President, and John D. Burnett designated to perform the duties 
of the office. When the question of Burnett's confirmation' came 
up in January, 1886, the Senate called on the Attorney General 
for all the papers filed in the Department of Justice relative to 
the removal of Dustin. ^ The Attorney General at the direction 
of the President refused this request, and pointed out that the 

1 Niks, Register, LXII, 61. 

2 Congressional Record, 49 Cong., I sess., 1585. 



42 Veto Power: — Distribution of Powers. [Ch. iii. 

Senate already had all the papers relating to the nomination of 
Burnett. 1 

The Senate criticised the President's position severely.^ It was 
maintained that the papers were essential to the decision of the 
question as to whether a nomination was necessary ; that letters 
to public officers in their public capacity are official papers. In 
short, it was held that the Senate had the right to call for and 
should receive any papers on file in the archives of the Depart- 
ments, and that therefore the President's position was untenable. 

The President, on the other hand, declared that the papers in 
question, although on file in the Department of Justice, were 
private, and therefore not subject to the call of the Senate. The 
President then took up the real question at issue, and denied in a 
most emphatic manner the right of the Senate to " review or re- 
verse the act of the executive in the suspension during the recess 
of the Senate of federal officials." ^ 

The decision of the dispute must turn on the question last 
touched upon. Can the Senate " review or reverse " the suspen- 
sion of federal officials during the recess of the Senate .'' It would 
seem that it cannot. For when the Tenure of Office Act was 
amended in 1869, the suspension of officials during the recess was 
left wholly to the discretion of the President, and the provision 
requiring him to report to the Senate the evidence and reason for 
his action was abandoned.* Under these circumstances the Senate 
had no right to demand the papers relative to the suspension of 
Dustin, and the President in refusing the request was only defend- 
ing his legal and constitutional rights. 

§ 28. The Tenure of Office Act. — In President Johnson's admin- 
istration arose a much more serious question with reference to the 
power of appointment. President Johnson had always advocated 
rotation in office in its most flagrant form,^ and when he came into 
power he used the patronage of the government to destroy the 
political organization which had placed him in power, but which 
was not willing to accept his policy. In the summer of 1866 he 
openly defied Congress, and declared that he would "kick out" 
the office-holders hostile to him as fast as he could.^ Congress 
and the country felt that something must be done, and, after re- 

1 Congressional Record, 49 Cong., I sess., 1585. ^ Ibid. ^ Ibid., 1902-1903. 

* 16 Stats, at Large, 6. 

^ Miss Salmon, Appointing Power of the President, 89. ^ Ibid., 89, note. 



§§ 27-29] Removals from Office. 43 

jecting the Civil Service Bill, offered by Mr. Jenckes of Rhode 
Island, passed the Tenure of Office Act.^ This bill abandoned 
the past policy of the government, and provided that in all cases 
where the confirmation of the Senate was required, no removal 
could be made by the President without the approval of the Senate. 

President Johnson's veto was based on constitutional grounds. 
The President showed that the First Congress had construed the 
Constitution as conferring the power of removal on the President 
alone ;^ that Madison considered this to be a correct construction 
of the Constitution ; that Justice Story and Chancellor Kent consid- 
ered the ruling of the First Congress binding ; and that Mr. Web- 
ster, although opposed to removal by the President alone, admitted 
"that it was settled by construction, settled by precedent, settled 
by the practice of the government, and settled by statute." The 
President's position was perfectly sound, from a constitutional 
point of view, and his argument was of great weight. The fact 
was that Congress, in attacking President Johnson's notoriously 
flagrant abuse of power, had attacked it from the wrong direction. 
If Mr. Jenckes' measure had been adopted, the President would 
have had no constitutional arguments to oppose to it.^ 

Congress was in no mood to be opposed, however, and in 
spite of the President's logic, passed the bill over his veto.^ 

§ 29. The Fitz-John Porter Bill. — The last of the vetoes for the 
protection of the power of appointment, like the first one in the 
class, frustrated action which was much like an actual appointment 
to office on the part of Congress. The bill was entitled " An act 
for the relief of Fitz-John Porter," and it was vetoed by President 
Arthur July 2, 1884.^ The bill authorized the President to appoint 
Porter to his old position as Colonel in the Army. 

One of the reasons for the veto was that the measure was an 
infringement of the executive power of appointment. It is uncon- 
stitutional for Congress to authorize the President to make any 

^ Senate Journal, 39 Cong., 2 sess., 423; 14 Stats, at Large, 430. 

2 Annals of Congress, i Cong., i sess., 368-383. 

3 Mr. Jenckes' Bill would have prevented the appointment of unfit men, but would 
have left the President's power of removal untouched. — Miss Salmon, Appointing Power 
of the President, 90. 

* Appendix A, No. 62. The act was partially repealed in 1869, and wholly repealed 
in 1887. It has generally been considered both inexpedient and unconstitutional. 

^ Appendix A, No. 132. Porter had been cashiered by court-martial in 1863 for 
alleged insubordination. 



44 V^fo Powers : — Distribntioti of Powers. [Ch. iii. 

appointment. The Constitution gives the President power to make 
appointments to certain offices which it names, as well as to all 
others not otherwise provided for by the Constitution which shall 
be established by law. The only limit on this power is the pro- 
vision that " Congress may by law vest the appointment of such 
inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the 
Courts of the law, or in the heads of the departments." ^ Congress 
is omitted from this carefully enumerated list of possible possess- 
ors of appointing power, and, in consequence, cannot legally claim 
such power. To be sure, in the bill under discussion Congress 
merely authorized the President to appoint, and did not assume 
to make the appointment or even to command the President 
to make it. The bill was, however, an attempt to ensure the 
appointment of Porter to his old position, and this attempt was in 
spirit, if not technically, a violation of the Constitution.^ 

§ 30. Protest for the protection of the President's war power. — 
The President has been obliged to defend his power in foreign 
affairs and his power of appointment by the use of the veto. Still 
another executive power has been attacked by Congress and 
defended by the President. This is the War Power. In 1867, 
Congress passed an act making appropriations for the army, to 
which was tacked a rider ^ practically depriving the President of 
his power as Commander-in-chief of the Army.^ The President 
signed the bill on account of the urgent need for the appropriation, 
but he sent to Congress a vigorous protest against the rider.^ 

Here, as in the veto of the Tenure of Office bill, Johnson had 
the Constitution on his side. That instrument says clearly that 
" the President shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy 
of the United States." ^ Congress has no voice in the matter. It 
can appoint no one but the President Commander-in-chief, and can 
withdraw from him not the slightest part of the power pertaining 
to the office.''' The only remedy for a misuse of the power is an 
impeachment. 

1 Constitution of United States, Art. II, Sec. 2, § 2. 

2 The bill also relieved Porter of his disabilities. This side of the measure will be 
referred to in § 68. 

3 14 United States Stats, at Large, 487. 

* The act provided that all orders should be given through the commanding general, 
then General Grant. 

^ Appendix B, No. 6. 

6 Art. II, Sec. 2, § i. ^ Von Hoist, Constitutional Law, 192. 



§§ 29-33-] War Pozvers ; Covode hivestigation. 45 

§ 3^^- Protest and veto for the protection of the President's per- 
sonal rights under the Constitution. — Congress, besides infringing 
the powers of the executive in foreign affairs, over appointments 
and over the Army and Navy, has, in two instances, attempted to 
deprive the President of what might be called his personal rights 
under the Constitution. 

§ 32. Covode Investigation. — The first of these attempts 
occurred in President Buchanan's administration and was met by 
a protest. The affair is known as the Covode investigation, and 
was based on a resolution appointing a committee to see if the 
President had, " by money patronage or improper means, sought to 
influence the action of Congress, or any committee thereof, for or 
against the passage of any law appertaining to the rights of any 
State or Territory." ^ The friends of the measure upheld it on the 
ground that it was but an exercise of the power which the House 
of Representatives possessed in the matter of impeachment. The 
President pointed out in his protest ^ that, with the exception of 
the power of impeachment, the Constitution vests the House of 
Representatives with no jurisdiction over the President, and that 
in such proceedings all precedents demanded the presenta- 
tion of particular charges, and an open and impartial investigation 
of those charges. In the Covode Investigation the accusations 
were of the vaguest possible character, and the investigation was 
conducted by an ex parte committee in secret session. In view 
of these facts, the protest seems justified; and this conclusion is 
strengthened when we consider that the resolution calling for the 
investigation was rushed through the House under cover of the 
previous question, that no attempts to point out the lack of specific 
charges were allowed to succeed, that the accuser was made one of 
the judges, and that the evidence was taken in an unfair way. It 
was, in short, little more than a scheme to inculpate the adminis- 
tration and render it odious before the country.^ 

§ 33. The President's salary. — One other attempt to encroach 
upon what I have called the personal rights of the executive is to 
be noticed. On April 18, 1876, President Grant vetoed a bill to 
reduce the President's salary from $50,000 to its old figure, — 

1 Congressional Globe, 39 Cong., i sess., 1437. 

- Appendix B, No. 4; Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, 
274. 

^ Curtis, Life of Buchanan, 248. 



46 Veto Power: — Distribution of Powers. [Ch. iii. 

$25,000.^ The bill was an avowed attempt at reform, — a return 
to the former simplicity of the government, — and was brought for- 
ward, largely for party purposes, not long before a national elec- 
tion. The President vetoed the bill ^ because the salary as fixed 
by the measure was insufficient to support the office of chief execu- 
tive of. a great nation with becoming dignity. He argued that 
^25,000 was enough at the beginning of the government, when the 
nation numbered only three millions of people and when the coun- 
try had not yet recovered from a long and exhausting war ; but 
since that time the size and dignity of the country and the needs 
of the office had greatly increased, and now ^50,000 was not too 
much. The good sense of the country has approved the President's 
position, and no serious attempt has since been made to reduce the 
President's salary. 

§ 34. Use of the veto in Controversies on questions arising out 
of the Civil "War.^ — In the discussion of the veto as a protection 
to the executive, one class of vetoes remains for special considera- 
tion, namely, the vetoes of measures which grew out of the Civil 
War. Some of these vetoes have already been considered under 
other heads. Here it becomes necessary to determine what bearing 
the questions raised had on the mutual relations of the executive 
and legislative branches of the government. 

The reconstruction vetoes claim our attention first.* President 
Johnson had a definite plan with regard to reconstruction. He 
desired to have the Rebel States readmitted into the Union at 
once, and on their former footing.^ Congress objected for two 

1 The increase was made in 1873 by a rider tacked to the legislative appropriation bill. 
The rider also increased the salaries of Congressmen, and was known as the " Salary Grab." 

2 Appendix A, No. 99. 

^ Two vetoes which are connected with the later reconstruction policy of the govern- 
ment should be mentioned at this point. They both apply to the United States laws 
covering Southern elections, and occurred in President Hayes's administration. The first 
veto was of a bill to prohibit military interference at elections (Appendix A, No. 1 21). 
President Hayes objected to it because it would prevent the exercise of force necessary 
at times to support the Constitution and laws of the United States (see § 35). The other 
vetoed bill was entitled " an act regulating the pay and appointment of deputy marshals " 
(Appendix A, No. 127). Under the guise of regulating the appointment of these officers 
the act took from them the power by which they were enabled to preserve order and pre- 
vent fraud at elections. For this reason the President refused to sign the bill (see § 35). 

* The bills discussed here can be found in Appendix A, numbered as follows : 53, 54, 
57, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72. The important measures are elsewhere 
considered according to subject matter. 

^ Conkling, Executive Powers, 76; McPherson, Reconstruction, 45-100 passim; 
Callender, Stevens, 111-112, 123; Wilson, Slave Power, HI, 590-602, 614. 



§§ 33-35-] Reconstruction Measures, Riders. 47 

reasons : in the first place, it had a plan of its own which it very- 
much preferred ; and in the second place, rather as a corollary to 
the first reason, Congress disapproved of the manner in which the 
President attempted to carry out his scheme. Congress claimed 
that the President acted in an unconstitutional manner, and the 
President abusively charged Congress with proceeding in an uncon- 
stitutional manner. Congress passed act after act in furtherance 
of its plan, acts which were regularly vetoed, and almost as regu- 
larly passed over the veto. The President called hard names, and 
strove to carry out his plan by means of proclamations and execu- 
tive orders to the Army, the effect of which Congress counteracted. 

No ordinary rules of judgment can be applied to these discus- 
sions, since the circumstances were abnormal and wholly unfore- 
seen by the founders of the government ; measures were needed 
for which neither constitutional provisions nor precedent could be 
cited. The plan proposed by President Johnson seems more in 
accord with the principles of the Constitution, although less prac- 
tical, than the Congressional plan. 

In so far as the veto was used in this contest, it cannot be said 
to have been used to defend the President from unconstitutional 
attack, save in the case of the Tenure of Office Act.^ Incidentally 
he was deprived of his command ovcx" the army^ and his power of 
appointment. But in the contest over the main question, that of 
reconstruction, none of the President's rights under the Constitu- 
tion were touched. 

§ 35. Riders on appropriation bills. — At One other period in 
our history questions arising out of the Rebellion have called for 
the use of the veto to protect executive power. In this case the 
veto was used for its own protection ; that is, for the protection of 
the President's right to refuse to sign a bill. 

The law of 1865 provided that troops might be used at the polls 
on election days to repel armed enemies of the United States, and 
to keep the peace.^ The election law of 1870, as amended February 
28, 1871, provided for the appointment of two supervisors of elec- 
tions in each election district or voting precinct. These supervis- 
ors were to be appointed by the Federal circuit judges and were 
personally to count each ballot.* 

1 Ante, § 28. 2 Ante, § 30. 

3 Rev. Stats., §§ 2002, 5528. * 16 Stats, at Large, 434. 



48 Veto Power: — Distribution of Pozvers. [Ch. iii. 

The Democrats disliked this legislation, and opposed it un- 
successfully in Congress. In time they got control of that 
body and at once set about the repeal of the obnoxious laws. 
President Hayes was opposed to the undertaking, and Con- 
gress therefore attempted to accomplish its purpose by means 
of riders.^ 

A rider was attached to the Army appropriation bill of 1878, 
taking away from the government the right to employ the Army 
as 3. posse comitatiis} The President signed this bill, and embold- 
ened by success. Congress redoubled its efforts. Within a short 
time five appropriation bills were furnished with riders, whose 
object was the repeal of the objectionable election laws.^ But they 
did not meet with the success which attended the first one. In 
short, they were all vetoed. 

The President vetoed the measures on the ground that the Con- 
stitution had granted the executive the privilege of refusing his 
sanction to Congressional proposals, and that he would not allow 
Congress to brow-beat him out of his privilege. It was a bold step 
to take, for riders had been very numerous in the years since the 
war, and had come to be considered almost as a matter of course.* 
The President's position was, however, constitutionally sound. He 
was brave enough to stand by his convictions, and the fact that 
his opponents did not have a two-thirds majority in Congress gave 

1 The practice of attaching riders to appropriation bills and other important meas- 
ures began in 1820, when the bill for the admission of Missouri was " tacked " to the bill 
for the admission of Maine. In 1849 the Senate tacked to an appropriation bill a clause 
extending the Constitution and Revenue laws to the newly-acquired Mexican territory. 
This attempt at coercion failed. In 1856 the House tacked a provision to an Army ap- 
propriation bill, forbidding the use of Federal troops for the enforcement of territorial law 
in Kansas. The Senate refused to be coerced, and Congress adjourned without passing 
any Army appropriation. An extra session was called, in which the House yielded and 
passed an Army appropriation bill without the rider. These early riders were attempts 
by one house of Congress to coerce the other. In President Johnson's administration 
riders were first prominently used to coerce the President. They have been exceedingly 
numerous in the last twenty-five years. The most important were : the rider depriving 
President Johnson of the war power ; Senator Kellogg's rider providing for Federal supei:- 
visors of elections (1872); "the salary grab " (1873); and the riders in Hayes' admin- 
istration. — Florace Davis, American Constitutions (in Johns Hopkins University Studies, 
Third Series). 

^ 20 Stats, at Large, 152. 

^ The bills will be found in Appendix A, numbered: 120, 122, 123, 125, 126. 

* It is said that 387 riders were attached to appropriation bills between 1862 and 
1875. — Davis, American Constitutions, 30. 



§§ 35> 36.] Riders, General Effect of Vetoes. 49 

him complete victory. The rules of the House of Representatives 
in 1888-89 forbade the "tacking" of any measure of general legis- 
lation to an appropriation bill unless it was germane to the subject 
of the bill. 

§ 36- Greneral effect of the vetoes for the protection of the Ex- 
ecutive. — The veto power, as the present chapter shows, has been 
used many times, and often successfully, as a defence to the execu- 
tive. The power of the executive in foreign affairs, the power of 
appointment, his power over the Army, and lastly his power to 
veto bills, have all been asserted and maintained against legislative 
encroachment. 

In other instances, however, the veto has not proved the 
complete protection to the President which the Constitutional 
Convention anticipated. Mr. Horace Davis, in his " American 
Constitutions," ^ points out three ways in which Congress has 
encroached on the executive. In the first place. Congress has 
invaded the treaty-making power, and, in the face of the Con- 
stitution, abrogated treaty provisions by statute.^ This was 
conspicuously the case in 1798, when our treaty relations with 
France were thus abrogated.^ Again, the House of Representa- 
tives claims the right to pass upon all treaties touching the rev- 
enue, by refusing the appropriations necessary to carry them into 
effect, on the ground that the House alone has the right to origi- 
nate money bills. This claim was acknowledged in the Hawaiian 
Reciprocity treaty, in which there was a provision that the treaty 
should not become binding until the passage of an act of Congress 
to carry it into effect.* Both of these claims Mr. Davis considers 
as invasions of the President's treaty-making power, which might 
have been resisted, perhaps successfully, by the veto. They were, 
however, not resisted, and are probably both too- strong now to be 
overthrown. 

In the second place. Congress both directly and indirectly has 
invaded the President's power of appointment to and removal from 
office. As we have already seen, the Tenure of Office Act deprived 
the President of power in making removals which the uniform 
interpretation of the Constitution has accorded him. But Con- 

1 Johns Hopkins University Studies, Third Series 

2 In support of this claim by Congress, see Taylor v. Morton, 2 Curtis, 454. 
2 Davis, American Constitutions, 28. 

* 19 Stats, at Large, 627. 



50 Veto Power : — Distribution of Pozuers. Ch. iii. 

gress, although powerful enough to seize this power in spite of 
the veto, has since relinquished it voluntarily.^ 

The President by the relinquishment obtained merely the 
shadow of power, for he had already lost the substance through 
the " courtesy of the Senate." As far back as President Jackson's 
administration party leaders began to claim the right to control 
the President's power of nomination by suggesting suitable can- 
didates. This claim became stronger, and by President Johnson's 
time it was looked upon as an undoubted right, so that nominations 
were practically made, not by the President, but by the Senators,, 
and even by members of the House of Representatives. 

It is clear that an invasion of the President's power in regard 
to nominations to office cannot be reached by the veto. It must 
be met, if at all, by the sturdy refusal of the President to submit 
to dictation in the matter. It has been met in that way. Presi- 
dent Hayes refused to listen to Senatorial dictation ; ^ President 
Garfield's contest with the New York Senators over the " courtesy 
of the Senate " is famous, and President Harrison is at the present 
time showing a commendable independence in making appoint- 
ments not approved by Senators of the states in which they are 
made. 

Congress has encroached upon the executive in one other way, 
namely, in forcing him to sign bills of which he did not approve, 
by tacking them as riders to appropriation bills. This assump- 
tion of executive power, and President Hayes's successful resist- 
ance of it, we have just considered. 

Practically, then, Congress has succeeded in partially usurping 
only one of the President's powers, that of making treaties ; and 
even in this case the veto might have been successfully used. The 
record forcibly demonstrates the wisdom and foresight of the 
founders of the Constitution, in their expectation that the .veto 
would be an efficient instrument in maintaining the balance of 
power between the executive and legislative departments. 

1 The act was finally repealed March 3, 1887. See 24 Stats, at Large, 500. 

2 Davis, American Constitutions, 40. 



CHAPTER IV. 

VETOES AFFECTING THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS 
OF GOVERNMENT 

§ 37. Classification. 

§ 38. Relation of the national government to individuals. 
§ 39- Question of the establishment of religion. 
§ 40. Naturalization. 
§ 41. The Indians. 
§ 42. The Negro. 
§ 43. The Chinese. 

§ 44. General remarks on the power over individuals. 
§ 45. Territorial powers. District of Columbia. 
§ 46. Early land vetoes. 

§ 47. Public lands and the Constitution. Land grants. 
§ 48. Later land vetoes on grounds of expediency. 
§ 49. Effect of the public land vetoes. 
§ 50. Admission of States. 

§ 51. Criticism of the Colorado and Nebraska vetoes. 
§ 52. Financial powers. 
§ 53. The tariff. 
§ 54. Refunding the direct tax. 
§ 55. Bank charter vetoes. 

§ 56. Madison's Bank veto. 
§ 57. Jackson's Bank veto. 
§ 58. Tyler's Bank veto. 
§ 59. Criticism of Bank vetoes. 
§ 60. Currency and coinage. 
§ 61. Inflation Bill. 
§ 62. The Bland Silver Bill. 
§ 63. Expenditure of public money. 
§ 64. French spoliation claims. 
§ 65. Relief bills. 

§ 66. Bills defrauding the government of money. 
§ 67. Bills relieving deserters from the army. 
§ 68. Bills relieving former army officers of disability. 
§ 69. Bills carelessly drawn. 
§ 70. Miscellaneous relief bills. 
§ 71. Pension vetoes. 

§ 72. Bills conveying no benefit. 

§ 73. Unnecessary increase of pensions. 

§ 74. Injuries not received " in the line of duty." 

§75. Dependent relatives : dependency not proved. 

[SI] 



52 Veto Power: — Exercise of Poiuers. [Ch. iv. 

§ 76. Miscellaneous pension bills. 
§ 77. Dependent Pension Bill. 
§ 78. President Cleveland's pension policy. 
§ 79. Expediency of the pension vetoes. 
•§ 80. Constitutionality of the pension vetoes. 
§ 81. Summary of the question of pension vetoes. 
§ 82. Commercial powers. 

§ 83. Internal improvements. 

§ 84. Madison's veto of a general bill. 

§ 85. Monroe's Cumberland Road veto. Constitutionality of improve- 
ments. 
§ 86. Jackson's vetoes. Jurisdiction and local character. 
§ 87. Tyler's vetoes. Improvement of water-ways. 
§ 88. Polk's vetoes. Local improvements. 
§ 89. Pierce's vetoes. Implied powers. 
§ 90. Buchanan's vetoes. Constitutional grounds. 
§ 91. Grant's veto and refusal to carry out a bill. 
§ 92. Arthur's veto. Local objects. 
§ 93. Public buildings. 

§ 94. General view of internal improvement vetoes. 
§ 95. Measures based on the general welfare clause. 

§ 96. Texas Seed Bill. 
§ 97. War powers. 
§ 98. General effect of the veto on the exercise of the powers of government. 

§ 37. Classification. — The vetoes affecting the powers of govern- 
ment may conveniently be subdivided into two classes : those relat- 
ing to the distribution of powers, and those relating to the exercise 
of powers. In the last chapter the first of these two divisions was 
considered ; the second and more important claims our attention 
in the present chapter. 

In order to trace the connection between the vetoes of the suc- 
cessive Presidents it is necessary to classify them, according to 
the nature of the power claimed or exercised, into six sections. 
I. The vetoes which affect the government's power over individu- 
als. 2. Vetoes which concern the exercise of the territorial powers 
of the government. 3 and 4. Vetoes which involve the financial 
and commercial powers of the government. 5. Vetoes of meas- 
ures based upon the general welfare clause. 6. Vetoes which affect 
the war power of Congress. 

S 38. Relation of the national government to individuals. — 
Although the United States is a Federal government, it exercises 
authority over all individuals in the States. It recognizes and 
protects certain rights of all persons, and has special powers over 
certain specified classes of persons. Thus the Constitution guaran- 



§§ 37-39-] bidividuals. Religion. 53 

tees personal and religious liberty, a guaranty which Congress 
must enforce. Again, the Indians are subject exclusively to the 
control of the Federal government, and the important matters of 
naturalization and immigration have also been placed within the 
jurisdiction of the United States, rather than within that of the 
States. In the exercise of the duties imposed by or implied in 
these provisions of the Constitution, the government at Washing- 
ton is brought directly in contact with the people, and oftentimes 
in our history the veto has been used to check Congress in what 
the executive considered an unconstitutional or unv/ise use of this 
power over the individual. 

§ 39. Question of the establishment of religion. — Early in 1 789 
Mr. Madison brought up in Congress the question of the amend- 
ments to the Constitution, which the people demanded as sureties 
for their liberties. ^ Before the year 1791 ten amendments had 
become parts of the Constitution. The first of these declares 
that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The amend- 
ment was passed by men keenly alive to the dangers of an intol- 
erant and powerful state church. It was meant to be a guaranty 
of religious liberty to every individual in the nation. 

In two instances President Madison made use of the veto to 
protect the first amendment. February 21, 181 1, he vetoed a 
bill entitled, "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Colum- 
bia." ^ In so far as the act was merely for the incorporation of 
the church it was constitutional, since in no other way could a 
charter be obtained in the District of Columbia. But the bill went 
beyond the limits of an incorporating act, and established certain 
unnecessary rules which related purely to the organization and 
policy of the church. The measure was therefore vetoed. 

The President's position seems sound. The bill gave legal force 
and sanction to certain provisions of the constitution and adminis- 
tration of the church which the simple incorporation of the church 
did not require. It was, therefore, in so far as it exceeded the 
necessities of the case, a law " respecting the establishment of re- 
ligion," and consequently a violation of the first amendment. 

When the President's message came up for consideration in the 

1 Schouler, History of the United States, I, 102. 

2 Appendix A, No. 3. 



54 ^^^ Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

House, very little was said. Mr. Wheaton, in support of the bill, 
declared it to be constitutional, on the ground that it was merely 
a regulation of the funds of a religious society.^ This argument 
seems hardly more than the question at issue stated in a different 
form, and therefore can have no weight. 

February 28, 181 1, President Madison withheld his assent from 
a bill entitled " An act for the relief of . . . the Baptist Church 
at Salem Meeting-House in the Mississippi Territory. "^ The 
President vetoed the bill because it reserved a portion of the land 
of the United States for the use of the Baptist Church. This he 
considered a "principle and precedent " for the appropriation of 
the funds of the United States for the use of religious societies, 
which would be contrary to the iirst amendment to the Constitution. 

Since 181 1 there has been no attempt by Congress to link 
church and state together. Indeed, the two bills above described 
were not intended to have such an effect. President Madison was 
nevertheless wise in preventing what might have been used after- 
wards as a confusing or dangerous precedent. For in spite of the 
fact that our Constitution. is a written one, custom and precedent 
have a great influence upon it. 

§ 40. Naturalization. — Under authority granted by Art. I, 
Sec. VIII, of the Constitution, Congress, in 1812, passed a bill 
entitled, " An act supplementary to the acts heretofore passed 
on the subject of a uniform rule of naturalization." The bill 
reached the President late in the session, and he took no action 
upon it. It was subjected to what later became known as the 
"pocket veto." At the next session of Congress President Madi- 
son briefly explained as his reason for withholding his signature 
from the bill, that the privileges which it granted were liable to 
abuse by aliens having no real purpose of becoming naturalized.^ 

§ 41. The Indians. — The Indians have always been a trouble- 
some factor in the regulation of our internal affairs. The govern- 
ment has not wilfully wronged the Red man : nevertheless, through 
carelessness, inefficiency, and perhaps, most of all, through sheer 
ignorance, it has given ground for the charge that our treatment of 
the Indians has been careless and unjust. The treatment is, to a 
certain extent, reflected in the veto messages. 

1 Annals of Congress, 1 1 Cong., 3 sess., 984. 

2 Appendix A, No. 4. 

3 Ibid., No. 6. 



§§ 39-4I-] Naturalisation. Indians. 55 

On December 29, 1835, the Cherokee Indians agreed to leave 
the State of Georgia and move West, on consideration of the pay- 
ment to them of $5,600,000.^ During the last hours of the third 
session of the twenty-seventh Congress a joint resolution was 
passed, directing the payment of certificates or awards issued by 
the commissioners under the treaty with the Cherokee Indians.^ 
President Tyler disposed of this resolution by a pocket veto, and 
sent his reasons for so doing to the next Congress. He disap- 
proved of the resolution, because it was unjust to the Indians. 
Congress had not provided sufficient funds for satisfying in full 
the claims which the resolution professed to provide for ; nor was 
any system oi pro rata payment substituted for full payment. The 
consequence would have been that the first claim presented would 
have been paid, while the claims last presented, although equally 
entitled to consideration, would have gone unsatisfied. The Presi- 
dent prevented this injustice, and suggested the propriety of mak- 
ing some provision for a pro rata payment of claims : a course 
which would seem most reasonable since the last of the money 
due under the treaty was appropriated by the resolve under 
consideration. 

On February 3, 1876, President Grant vetoed a bill entitled, 
" An act transferring the custody of certain Indian trust funds 
from the Secretary of the Interior to the Treasurer of the United 
States."^ The bill had been drawn at the request of the Interior 
department, but it was so carelessly phrased that the Secretary of 
the Interior feared it would not accomplish the purpose desired. 
It was therefore vetoed. 

August 15, 1876, President Grant vetoed a bill entitled, "An 
act to provide for the sale of a portion of the reservation of the 
Confederated Otoe and Missouri, and the Sacs and Foxes of the 
Missouri tribe of Indians, in the States of Kansas and Nebraska."* 
The message was sent to the Senate, but before any action could 
be taken upon it a second message was received from the President, 
requesting that the bill be returned to him, in order that he might 
approve it. An interesting discussion then arose as to the power 
of the President to recall a veto message which had been received 
by Congress.^ It was generally held that the President had no 

1 Schouler, History of the United States, IV, 235. 

2 Appendix A, No. 28. ^ ibid., No. 96. * Il^id., No. 108. 
^ CongL-essional Record, 44 Cong., i sess., 5664; see ■siS.'io post, § 108. 



56 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

power to recall a veto when once it had been delivered, and that 
the only effect, and, in fact, the intended effect, of the President's 
second message was to destroy the persuasive influence of the first 
message, — to invite Congress to pass the bill over the veto. In 
accordance with this view the bill was passed over the veto by 
large majorities in both houses of Congress. 

July 7, 1886, President Cleveland returned to the Senate, with 
his objections, a bill entitled, "An act granting to railroads the 
right of way through the Indian reservation in Northern Mon- 
tana."^ The President vetoed the bill: first, because it granted 
a general right of way to all railroad companies, regardless of the 
needs of the community, or of the rights and interests of the 
Indians ; and secondly, because it specified no limit of time within 
which the construction of railroads should be begun or completed. 
The door was thus opened to a speculative occupation of the reser- 
vation, for an indefinite period, by corporations whose only object 
would be to sell the land at some future time to a genuine railroad 
company. Senator Dawes, in criticising this message, pointed 
out^that by the treaty of October 17, 1855, the United States 
reserved the right to construct roads of every description in the 
Indian reservation in Northern Montana. The President, however, 
in vetoing the bill under discussion, recognized this fact, and based 
his objection, not upon the granting of a right of way, but upon 
the granting of a right of way in such a loose manner that the 
grant could hardly fail to be abused. The Senate referred the 
President's message to the Committee on Indian Affairs, and no 
further action was taken. 

President Cleveland, by his veto of May 7, i888,'3 justly inter- 
fered in a case in which the rights of the Indians had been grossly 
violated. Certain New York Indians had been granted land in 
Kansas. Most of the Indians were prevented by threats or actual 
violence from taking possession of their lands. Some of the more 
venturesome, however, entered upon the land, but they were speedily 
killed or driven off. The white robbers then settled upon the land. 
The government professed to be powerless to help its "wards," 
and as the only reparation possible sold a part of the land in 1873, 
at the rate of four dollars and a half an acre, and turned the pro- 

1 Appendix A, No. 232. 

2 Congressional Record, 49 Cong., I sess., 6613. 

3 Appendix A, No. 293. 



§§ 41, 42-] The Indians and the Negro. 57 

ceeds over to the Indian owners. The present bill authorized the 
government to sell the remainder of the land at two dollars and a 
half an acre. This the President considered most unjust to the 
Indian owners; the land was certainly worth what it was in 1873, 
and he accordingly refused his assent to the bill. 

July 26, 1888, the President vetoed a bill granting a right of 
way to the Fort Smith, Paris, and Dardanelle Railway Company, 
through the Indian territory, on the ground that the grant violated 
the treaty rights of the Indians. ^ 

§ 42. The Negro. — It is a remarkable fact that, although the 
negro problem has been one of great political importance since 
1775, the veto power has never been employed directly either to 
attack or defend slavery. The nearest approach to anything of the 
kind was the well-known determination of Taylor to veto the Com- 
promise of 1850. The veto has been used, however, since the Civil 
War in connection with questions arising out of the status of the 
former slaves. 

March 13, 1866, a bill passed Congress entitled, "An act to 
protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and 
furnish the means of their vindication."^ 

March 27, 1866, President Johnson vetoed the bill. His objec- 
tions to it may be grouped under four heads. First, he denied the 
constitutional power of Congress to declare a body of persons citi- 
zens of the United States. Secondly, even admitting the first 
point, the President did not think that Congress had the right to 
settle the question when eleven States were unrepresented in that 
body. Thirdly, the President considered the bill, on the grounds 
of expediency, an unjustifiable mistake. The negroes were igno- 
rant, and it would be a serious danger to make them citizens. Lastly, 
the President objected to the bill on account of its interference 
with State rights. 

When the message came up in the Senate, the President's first 
and most important argument was very severely criticised. Sena- 
tor Trumbull showed^ that Frenchmen, Mexicans, Indians, and 
Spaniards had been admitted to citizenship by act of Congress.* 
The Senator further maintained that a citizen of the United States 
might also be a citizen of any state, and quoted in support of this 

1 Appendix A, No. 345. - Ibid., No. 54. 

3 Congressional Globe, 39 Cong., i sess., 1756 et seq. 
* Lawrence, Wheaton's International Law, 897-899. 



58 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

statement the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Gassies v. Ballow.^ 

The last three arguments in the President's message refer to 
the difference that existed between himself and Congress as to the 
proper reconstruction policy. That question has already been dis- 
cussed in another connection.^ 

§ 43. The Chinese. — In 1 868 Mr. Burlingame negotiated a 
treaty between China and the United States,^ under which citizens 
of either country could visit or reside in the other. Almost im- 
mediately the dangers and evils of Chinese immigration into the 
United States became manifest. The Chinese came here with no 
idea of becoming citizens, and never in any degree became infused 
with American ideas. The people of the Pacific slope early be- 
came alarmed, and finding state legislation ineffectual, memorialized 
Congress to check the inflowing stream of Mongolians. In 1879 
Congress passed a bill restricting Chinese immigration. March i, 
1879, President Hayes vetoed it.* The message is long, but its 
point may be stated in a word. The President objected to the bill 
because it put an end to a treaty without notice. He did not ques- 
tion the power of Congress to take the step, but in the state of 
our relations with China he considered it inadvisable and harmful 
to approach the subject in that way. 

The veto was sustained by Congress, and the President at once 
appointed a commission to treat with China in regard to a modifi- 
cation of the Burlingame treaty. These negotiations were suc- 
cessful, and a treaty was obtained from China which was duly 
ratified by the Senate.^ It reserved to the United States the right 
of regulating the immigration of the Chinese to this country. 

Before the treaty had been in operation a year, a bill was passed 
by Congress prohibiting all Chinese immigration into the United 
States for twenty years. April 4, 1882, President Arthur vetoed 
this bill.*^ He objected to it because in his opinion the treaty did 
not give Congress the power to exclude the Chinese for so long a 
period. It had not been expected, he said, that the United States 
would suspend immigration for more than three, or possibly five, 
years. 

1 6 Peters, 762. 2 ^^te. Chap. Ill, § 34. 

3 United States Treaties and Conventions, 165. 

* Appendix A, No. 119; Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress, 651-656. 

^ 22 United States Stats, at Large, 826. 

^ Appendix A, No. 129. 



§§ 42-45-] Status of the Chitiese. 59 

The action of President Arthur was justified by the intention 
of the negotiations ; and though the meaning of a treaty, like that 
of any other law, is not to be deduced from the opinion of the 
framers, the President exercised a proper discretion in withholding 
his assent. After some discussion ^ the Senate attempted to pass 
the bill over the veto, but did not succeed. 

§ 44. General remarks on the poAver over individuals. — Tlie 
class of vetoes which concern the power of the general govern- 
ment over individuals is not an important one. Perhaps the most 
significant is President Madison's refusal to sign the bill granting 
public land to the church in Mississippi. Had the bill become 
law, it might have led to other similar demands, which the govern- 
ment could not consistently have ignored, and in time precedents 
would probably have been created which would have involved the 
government in grave difiiculties. The only effect of the vetoes of 
the Chinese immigration bills was to prevent Congress from mov- 
ing with unjust haste. President Johnson's refusal to sign the 
civil rights bill had no practical effect, since that bill was passed 
over the veto. The Indian vetoes have been too few seriously to 
affect the policy of the government. 

§ 45. Territorial powers. District of Columbia. — No power of 
government has caused so much discussion in the United States as 
that over territory. The annexation of each successive parcel has 
been the subject of long diplomacy and of fierce debates ; the 
administration of territory involved the slavery question, and was 
the occasion of the Civil War. But the great struggles over the 
territories, the Compromises of 1820 and 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska, 
Lecompton, and English bills, led to no conflict between Congress 
and the President. It is otherwise with the public lands. Ever 
since 1789 the disposition of the public lands has been a recurring 
subject of dispute, and has led to a series of interesting vetoes. 

Before entering upon that subject, however, it may be well 
to dispose of several unimportant vetoes which relate to the local 
administration of the District of Columbia. 

August 14, 1876, President Grant vetoed a bill in regard to the 
repairing of Pennsylvania Avenue, in Washington, on the ground 
that the time within which the contractors must complete the work 
was not definitely stated. ^ 

^ Congressional Record, 47 Cong., i sess., 2609, 2614. 
2 Appendix A, No. 107. 



6o Veto Power : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

January 23, 1877, President Grant vetoed a bill removing the 
police of the District of Columbia from the control of the Police 
Commissioners, on the ground that certain gross violations of the 
law could be prevented only in case the then existing arrangement 
was continued.^ 

April 26, 1886, President Cleveland vetoed a bill which pro- 
vided for the delivery of certain dead bodies to medical colleges in 
the District of Columbia, on the ground that the measure did 
not guard carefully enough against abuses liable to arise in the 
treatment and disposition of the bodies.^ 

§ 46. Early land vetoes. ^ — The first of the vetoes affecting 
the public lands was the refusal of President Madison, in 181 1, to 
sign a bill granting land to a church in Mississippi.* The ground 
upon which it rested was the constitutional provision against the 
union of church and state, and the question was not discussed as 
to whether the grant would have been proper for other purposes. 

December 5, 1833, President Jackson sent to Congress a mes- 
sage giving his reasons for failing to sign at the last session a bill 
entitled, " An act to appropriate for a limited time the proceeds of 
the sales of public lands of the United States, and for granting 
lands to the States." ^ This document is, in many respects, the best 
of Jackson's veto messages. He begins by tracing the history of 
the public land, and comes to the conclusion that it was ceded to 
the United States on the express condition that it should be dis- 
posed of for the common benefit of the States, " according to their 
respective proportions in the general charge of expenditure." ^ The 
President then points out that this compact is violated by the pres- 
ent bill in two respects. In the first place, a portion of the land 
was confessedly not to be distributed equally among the States ; " 

1 Appendix A, No. in. ^ Ibid., No. 135. 

^ For general accounts of tiie public land policy of the United States, with bibliog- 
raphy, see Shosuki Sato, in Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series IV; Albert Bush- 
nell Hart, in Quarterly Journal of Economics, I, 169-183, 251-254. 

* Ante, § 39; Appendix A, No. 4. 

'^ Appendix A, No. 17. In reference to this bill Henry Clay wrote to Madison, ask- 
ing him whetlier, in his opinion, the President had not violated the Constitution by retain- 
ing the bill, instead of returning it approved or disapproved. To this inquiry Madison 
returned a rather equivocal answer. — Madison, Works, IV, 299. The same question 
was discussed at length when the President's message was read. — Debates of Congress, 
Vol. X, Part I, 14-18; s&Q post, § loi. 

6 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 53, p. in. 

■* Ibid., 113. 



§§ 45-47-] District of Columbia. Lands. 6l 

and, in the second place, the distribution of the remainder was to 
be made according to the population, instead of according to the 
share of each State in the general charge and expenditure. ^ 

The President also objected to the bill because it appropriated 
the land and its proceeds for local improvements, — a procedure 
which he considered identical with the appropriation of money 
lying in the treasury. He declared that the money derived from 
the sales of the land should be turned into the treasury, to form a 
part of the aggregate revenue of the government.^ 

December 14, 1842, President Tyler sent to Congress his rea- 
sons for having failed at the close of the preceding session to sign 
a bill entitled, " An act to repeal th^ proviso of the sixth section 
of the act entitled, ' An act to appropriate the proceeds of the sales 
of the public lands and to grant pre-emption rights,' approved Sep- 
tember fourth, eighteen hundred and forty-one." ^ The proviso sus- 
pended the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public 
land among the States whenever the customs duties were over 
twenty per cent. The proviso was considered by President Tyler 
an important part of the compromise tariff of 1833 ; and as he 
objected to the bill, not from the point of view of the public land, 
but from the point of view of the tariff, his position will be fully 
considered later on in connection with his veto of the tariff bills.* 

§ 47. Public Lands and the Constitution. Land grants. — In 1 854 
we come upon a veto which follows President Jackson's discussion 
of the proper constitutional disposition of the public lands. On 
May 3 of that year President Pierce refused his sanction to a bill 
entitled, "An act making a grant of public lands to the several 
States for the benefit of indigent insane persons." ^ In the debates 
upon this bill its friends had argued "^ that land was different from 
money in the vaults of the treasury ; and that although Congress 
could appropriate money only in certain limited ways, its power 
over the public land was absolutely unlimited. 

The President dismissed this argument with a word, declaring 
that he could see no difference between public land and money in 

1 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 114. ^ Ibid., 112. 
3 Appendix A, No. 26. 

* Fos^, § 55; see also Appendix A, Nos. 24, 25. 
^ Appendix A, No. 34. 

6 See Congressional Globe under the dates given in the Appendix; and United States 
Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3, § 2. 



62 Veto Power : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

the treasury. He placed his objection to the bill on the broad 
ground that it assumed for the general government a power over 
local affairs in the States which was not granted either directly or 
impliedly by the Constitution. The only clause from which the 
measure could hope to obtain support, in the President's opinion, 
was the "general welfare" clause, and he declared that to admit 
the authority of that clause in the present case would be to deprive 
the Constitution of its meaning. " All the pursuits of industry, 
everything which promotes the material or intellectual well-being 
of the race, every ear of corn or boll of cotton which grows, is 
national in the same sense ; for each of these things goes to swell 
the aggregate of national prosperity and happiness of the United 
States," The President argued further that the land in question was 
pledged as security for the debt contracted by the act of January 
28, 1847, and to sell it would be a breach of the national faith. 

February 24, 1859, President Buchanan vetoed a bill entitled, 
" An act donating public lands to the several States and Territories 
which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the 
mechanic arts." ^ In order to secure the grant each State was 
required to provide within five years not less than one college. 
The President objected to the bill, in the first place, because the 
government needed the revenue from the sale of the lands to meet 
its expenses ; in the second place, because the low price at which 
the land was to be sold would induce speculators to buy it in large 
blocks, thus retarding the development of the country ; lastly, the 
President doubted the constitutional power of Congress to pay for 
these State colleges. If public land and the proceeds from its sale 
were to be treated as were the funds in the treasury, there was, he 
considered, no question of the unconstitutionality of the measure. 
The argument in favor of the bill was substantially the same as in 
1854; it was said that public land stood upon a different footing 
from other public property, and that the power which Congress 
had to "dispose of " ^ the public lands included the right to give 
them to the States for any purposes whatever. Against this doc- 
trine Buchanan set himself strongly : he declared that Congress was 
in the position of a trustee for the people, and that no trustee would 
be justified in giving away trust property, merely because he was 
instructed to "dispose" of it. 

^ Appendix A, No. 44. 

2 Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 3, § 2. 



§ 47-] Public Lands. 63 

The President met the argument that Congress had previously 
granted land to the States for educational purposes, with the same 
reasoning- employed by Pierce in 1854. The gifts, he said, had 
been almost universally to new States, and were for the purpose of 
enhancing the value of the remaining public land in the States to 
which the grants were made. The acts were merely those of a 
"prudent proprietor." 

June 22, i860, President Buchanan again refused his assent to 
an act relating to the public land. The bill was entitled, " An act 
to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public domain, and 
for other purposes." ^ 

The measure provided that any citizen of the United States who 
was a head of a family, and any foreigner who should declare his 
intention of becoming a citizen, could obtain one hundred and sixty 
acres of public land at a nominal cost. The important condition 
was that the settler should remain on the land five years before 
receiving the title. It was further provided that all the unsold 
public land which had been subject to sale for thirty years should 
be granted to the State within whose boundaries it lay. 

The President considered the bill unconstitutional, both on 
account of the donation to the States, and because it practically 
gave the land to the settlers. For his reasons he referred to the 
message which has just been considered in regard to grants of land 
for the establishment of agricultural colleges. He also objected to 
the bill because it opened a vast field to speculation ; because the 
government needed the revenue from the public land ; and because 
it was unjust to the settlers who had already bought land. 

The message gave rise to a long debate in Congress in which 
each of the President's arguments was attacked.^ The only impor- 
tant point that was effectually met, however, was that in regard 
to the revenue. Here it was pointed out that the bill took away 
no essential resource of the government; because in times of war 
or distress when the government needed revenue most, the public 
lands sold very slowly.^ A more occult reason for the opposition 
of both Presidents was the feeling of some Southern politicians 
that the lands were being used to attract foreigners to the West, 
and thus to strengthen the North and to increase the number of 

1 Appendix A, No. 48. 

2 Congressional Globe, 36 Cong., i sess., 3263-3272. 
8 Ibid., 3272. 



64 Vf/o Poivcr : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

Northern States.^ Whatever the reasons, the attempt made by 
Pierce and Buchanan to check the generosity of Congress was inef- 
fectual. Acts were eventually passed granting lands to the States 
for agricultural colleges, establishing the homestead system, and 
making "donations " of unsold lands to the older interior States. 

§ 48. Later land vetoes on grounds of expediency. — Since the 
war a number of bills relating to the public lands have failed to 
obtain executive approval, but in these bills the only points raised 
have been those of expediency. 

June 15, 1866, President Johnson vetoed a bill which authorized 
the New York and Montana Mining Company to pre-empt mineral 
and timber lands in the Territory of Montana.^ The provisions of 
the pre-emption laws in regard to residence on and cultivation of 
the land, the limit to the amount of land which could be pre-empted 
by a single individual, and the rule requiring payment for the land 
within a certain time, were all suspended by the bill under discus- 
sion. Furthermore, it allowed the mining company to acquire a 
patent to the land before the Indian title was extinguished. The 
President considered such an act to be hostile to the policy of the 
pre-emption laws, and a great injustice to the Indians. 

July 28, 1866, President Johnson vetoed an act which, under the 
pretext of erecting the Territory of Montana into a surveying dis- 
trict, practically granted to the New York and Montana Mining 
Company the rights which the President had objected to in his 
message of June 15.'^ 

January 15, 1877, President Grant vetoed an act relating to the 
proof required in homestead entries.^ The reasons for the veto 
accompanied the veto message in a separate document which does 
not appear in the Journals of Congress. 

In President Cleveland's administration, six bills relating to the 
public land met with executive disapproval. March 11, 1886, the 
President vetoed a bill entitled, " An act to quiet the title of set- 
tlers on the Des Moines River lands in the State of Iowa, and for 
other purposes."^ In 1846 Congress had granted to Iowa a strip 
of the public land lying along the Des Moines River. The act 
was so worded that the title to a portion of the land was in doubt. 
The State claimed it, and a few years later the claim was admitted 

1 Von Hoist, U. S., VI, 302. 

2 Appendix A, No. 56. 3 ibj^., No. 58. 
* Ibid., No. no. 5 Ibid., No. 134. 



§§ 47. 48-] Public Lands. 6$ 

by the United States, and the land was certified to the State 
by the Secretary of the Interior. The State then deeded it to 
the Des Moines Navigation and Raih-oad Company in considera- 
tion of improvements made by that company along the Des Moines 
River. The company afterward wound up its affairs and dis- 
tributed the land. In 1859 the Supreme Court of the United 
States decided that the certification of the lands to Iowa was 
unauthorized and void, and that the title was still in the United 
States. Thereupon in 1861 and 1862 acts of Congress were 
passed which relinquished to Iowa all the title of the United States 
in these lands. The Supreme Court has since then held repeat- 
edly that these acts made good the title of the Des Moines Navi- 
gation and Railroad Company, and of those claiming under that 
company. 

The present act in the face of the previous acts of Congress, 
and of the decisions of the Supreme Court, declared the lands to 
be the property of the United States. Furthermore, the claims of 
all settlers on these lands prior to 1880, who had taken possession 
with intent to obtain the lands under the pre-emption and home- 
stead laws, were made good. This seemed to the President " An 
interference with the determination of a co-ordinate branch of the 
government, an arbitrary annulment of a public grant made more 
than twenty-five years ago, an attempted destruction of vested 
rights, and a threatened impairment of lawful contracts," and he 
therefore vetoed the bill. 

May 18, 1888, President Cleveland vetoed a joint resolution 
authorizing the city of Boston to make use of Castle Island in Bos- 
ton Harbor as a park.^ P'ort Independence, one of the important 
defences of Boston, is situated on this island, and the President 
objected to the resolution, on the ground that the use of the island 
as a place of recreation would be entirely inconsistent with its 
necessary use as a defence. 

August 7, 1888, the President was again compelled to interfere 
to prevent the destruction of a portion of the national defences. 
The vetoed bill granted to the city of Tacoma, Washington Terri- 
tory, the right to use a military reservation in the neighborhood of 
the city as a park.^ This reservation was considered by the mili- 
tary authorities an important element in the national defence. 

1 Appendix A, No. 298. '-^ Ibid., No. 347. 



66 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

The President objected to the bill, on the ground that the use of 
the reservation as a park would impair or destroy its usefulness 
from a military point of view. 

In 1862 land was granted to such of the States as should estab- 
lish agricultural colleges. In case a State should select lands 
whose value had been raised to double the minimum price in con- 
sequence of railroad grants, the act provided that the number of 
acres granted to the State should be diminished proportionately. 
The grant to Kansas had been decreased in this way. A joint 
resolution passed Congress in 1888, authorizing the Secretary of 
the Interior to certify lands to Kansas for the benefit of her agri- 
cultural college, on the ground that the railroad which made the 
State land more valuable had been abandoned ; that the land had 
in consequence fallen to the minimum value; and that, therefore, 
the State was entitled to more land. The President vetoed the 
resolution September 24, 1888,^ on the ground that although the 
original railroad had been abandoned, new ones had been located 
in its place, and that in consequence only about three hundred 
acres of the Kansas grant had fallen to the minimum. 

On the same day that the resolution just considered was vetoed, 
the President sent to the House of Representatives his objections 
to a bill entitled, "An act to provide for the disposal of the Fort 
Wallace military reservation in Kansas." ^ President Cleveland 
objected to the measure because it had been drawn in such a care- 
less manner that it would be likely to lead to the unjust treatment 
of certain private interests. 

February 21, 1889, President Cleveland vetoed a bill entitled, 
" An act to quiet the title of settlers on the Des Moines River 
lands, in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes." ^ The rea- 
sons for the veto were identical with those assigned for the veto 
of March 11, 1886. 

§ 49. Effect of the public land vetoes. — A comparison of the 
vetoes affecting the public lands brings out clearly two respects in 
which the executive has differed from the legislative department. 
On questions of expediency the executive has been a conservative 
element, unwilling to enter on untried schemes and standing as a 
protector of .settled and vested interests, as against the sweeping 
and often ill-considered action of Congress. In the end, however, 
a lavish disposition of the public lands has prevailed. In like 

1 Appendix A, No. 386. ^ \\:,\^^^ No. 387. ^ Yc,\6.., No. 425. 



§§ 48-5°-] Admission of States. 6y 

manner the second principle for whicli several Presidents have 
striven, has in the end been overborne. Pierce and Buchanan 
were right in their assertion that public land may lawfully be used 
for the same purposes as public money, and for no other : but the 
practice of the government has since been firmly established that 
the lands may be used to attract settlement, in ways in which 
money could not be used ; and the principle set forth by the vetoes 
may be considered as superseded by the accepted practice of the 
government. 

§ 50. Admission of States, — The territorial power of Congress 
enables it not only to control the management of the public lands 
and the government of the Territories, but also to admit the Terri- 
tories into the Union whenever it sees fit. In several cases, all 
of which occurred in President Johnson's administration, the ex- 
ecutive has prevented the exercise of this power. 

The first of the bills to which the President objected was en- 
titled, " An act for the admission of the State of Colorado into 
the Union." President Lincoln's administration had been dis- 
tinctly favorable to the admission of new free States. Encour- 
aged by this fact, both Colorado and Nebraska had applied for and 
obtained from Congress enabling acts.^ In 1866 both States 
applied for admission, and Congress passed acts admitting them. 

The Colorado bill was passed first, and when it reached the 
President, it found a man by no means so favorably disposed to 
the admission of Northern States as his predecessor had been ; 
and on May 15, 1866, it was vetoed.^ The President's objections 
were threefold. In the first place, in his opinion the population in 
the territory was not sufficient to warrant its admission as a State. 
Secondly, he doubted whether the people in the Territory really 
wished to change the Territory into a State. Lastly, the President 
did not think it just to admit new States while eleven of the exist- 
ing States were unrepresented in Congress. This last argument 
was borrowed from the larger controversy between Congress and 
the President in regard to reconstruction.^ 

The Nebraska bill was passed later in the session, and was 
quietly disposed of by a pocket veto,* of which Congress never 
received official notice. 

1 Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress, II, 276. 

- Appendix A, No. 55. ^ Ante, § 34. 

* Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress, II, 277. 



68 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

At the beginning of the next session of Congress^ Senator 
Wade again introduced bills for the admission of both Colorado 
and Nebraska into the Union. Both bills passed Congress, but as 
a preliminary to the passage of the acts both Territories were 
obliged expressly to guarantee the right of suffrage to the 
negroes. 

The Colorado bill reached the President first, and was promptly 
vetoed.^ The reasons for the veto were substantially those for 
the veto of the first bill with a few additions. The most impor- 
tant of the new objections was directed against the clause which 
prescribed that the State should never interfere with the right of 
the negroes to vote. 

January 29, 1867, the President vetoed the bill for the admis- 
sion of Nebraska.^ The President urged that the population of 
Nebraska was scarcely sufficient to warrant its admission ; but his 
main objection to the bill was that it prohibited the State from 
ever interfering with the right of the negroes to vote. The bill 
was reconsidered and passed over the veto. 

§ 51' Criticism of the Colorado and Nebraska vetoes. — The 
discussion of both vetoes in Congress was bitter and partisan. It 
was mainly carried on in the Senate.* It can hardly be doubted 
that, in the light of the circumstances governing the admission of 
other States, the President was justified in his course. Florida, 
Oregon, Kansas, and Nevada had, it is true, been admitted into 
the Union with a population not sufficient justly to entitle them 
to one .representative. But Florida had been admitted to make a 
slave State, and Kansas to settle a great national controversy. 

Without doubt. Congress had exclusive power in such cases, and 
could admit new States upon such terms as it chose. But the 
President was also a part of the legislative power, and could set 
his conditions. The truth was that Congress in its eagerness to 
increase the number of Northern States had hastened to admit 
unfit communities, and the President, although actuated by equally 
partisan motives, maintained a higher principle of public interest. 

The President objected in the second place to the restriction 
which Congress proposed to place upon the new States in regard 

1 2 sess., 39 Cong. 

2 Appendix A, No. 60. 3 jbid., No. 6i. 

* Colorado bill: Congressional Globe, 2 sess., 39 Cong., 818, 1922, 1927. Nebraska 
bill: CongressionaJ Globe, 2 sess., 39 Cong., 851, 1096. 



§§ 50-53-] Admission of States. 69 

to the right of suffrage. The question was only one phase of the 
larger one as to whether Congress may impose conditions of any 
kind on the admission of new States. Restrictions have not 
been uncommon, and some of them, as for example requiring 
from the new State a waiver of any claim to tax the lands of 
the United States, or fixing the boundary of the State, are 
undoubtedly binding.^ Such conditions as those imposed on 
Nebraska and Colorado cannot however have any force. One of 
the fundamental rules for the admission of new States is that each 
one shall be received into the Union on a footing with the States 
already existing, and with all their rights and privileges. One of 
these privileges is the power to amend the State Constitution, and 
the condition imposed on Nebraska and Colorado interfered with 
that privilege. Here, again, the President, although actuated by 
motives of hostility to the majority of Congress, was acting upon 
principles of strict constitutional justice. 

§ 52. Financial powers. — In considering the vetoes relating to 
the exercise of the powers of government, we have so far been con- 
cerned only with those touching either the rights of individuals or 
the territorial power of Congress. The class which next presents 
itself includes those vetoes which in one way or another affect the 
financial powers of the government. They are by far the most 
important and numerous of those to be examined. Such vetoes will 
be discussed in the following order : first, those which concern the 
raising of the revenue ; next, those which concern the safe-keeping 
of government funds ; thirdly, those which concern the circulating 
medium ; and lastly, those which concern the spending of the 
revenue. 

§ 53. The tariff. — The raising of revenue seems so well recog- 
nized a prerogative of Congress, that no tax bill has ever been 
vetoed upon financial grounds, or even from constitutional consid- 
erations unmixed with personal animus. With a single unimpor- 
tant exception, the only tariffs vetoed have been the two bills 
presented by the Whigs to President Tyler in the summer of 1842, 
when his struggle with the party which placed him in power was 
at its height. 

The reduction of duties under the Compromise Tariff of 1833 
had gone so far that by 1842 the expenses of the government were 

1 Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, 177. 



r 



yo Veto Power : — Exerxise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

greater than its receipts. To meet tliis deficiency, Congress, in 
June, 1842, passed a temporary revenue act which raised the duties 
above the twenty per cent average. Tacked to this bill was a 
provision for the continuance of the distribution of the proceeds 
from the sales of public land. The addition would have been vir- 
tually a repeal of the act of 1841 for the distribution of the pro- 
ceeds of the public land sales ; it was therein provided that, if the 
duties should be raised above twenty per cent, the distribution 
should cease.i To the President's mind the act of 1841 was a vital 
part of the Compromise of 1833, and he therefore vetoed the pres- 
ent bill.^ When the message was received by Congress, it created 
great excitement in that body.^ The Whigs were charged by their 
opponents with sending the bill to the President for the purpose of 
having it vetoed. The Whigs themselves expressed great indigna- 
tion at the suggestion, and declared that the purest motives of 
patriotism alone had influenced them. 

August 5, 1842, a permanent revenue bill passed the Senate 
and was sent to the President. This bill, like its predecessor, con- 
tained a clause providing for the distribution of the proceeds of the 
public land sales. August 9, President Tyler vetoed the bill.^ As 
in the case of the preceding bill, the President expressed no objec- 
tion to the revenue clauses of the bill, but based his opposition on 
the distribution clause. 

When the message was received by the House, it was referred 
to a select committee of thirteen.^ On August 16, this committee 
made three reports : a majority report through Adams, the chair- 
man,^ a minority report signed by Ingersoll and Roosevelt," and a 
report signed by Gilmer.^ The majority report attacked the Presi- 
dent's whole course, and severely censured his use of the veto 
power. The report closed with a recommendation for a constitu- 
tional amendment, providing that a simple majority vote of all the 
members of both Houses of Congress should be sufficient to pass a 
bill over the President's veto. When this report appeared, the 
President sent a written protest to the House. ^ The House 

1 The same question came up in Tyler's veto of the act to repeal the provision. See 
ante, § 46; Appendix A, No. 26. 2 Appendix A, No. 24. 

^ Congressional Globe, 27 Cong., 2 sess., 694, 699, 708, 712, 716. 
* Appendix A, No. 23. 

5 Congressional Globe, 27 Cong., 2 sess., 877. '' Ibid., 894. "^ Ibid., 899. 

8 Ibid., 896. s Appendix B, No. 3. 



§53-] The Tariff. 71 

returned as a reply a verbatim copy of the resolutions which the 
Senate had adopted on the occasion of President Jackson's protest, 
and for which Tyler, as a Senator, had voted. 

In the debate over the veto, members of Congress indulged in 
the most gloomy forebodings as to the future of the country. The 
President was charged with crushing out freedom. Mr. Lane of 
Indiana affirmed that^ "If the proud eagle of American liberty 
should ever sink, it would be cloven down by the sword of the 
executive." The records show that even the most sensible men on 
the Whig side of the House appeared to share the fear grandilo- 
quently expressed by Mr. Lane. Much of the criticism was of 
course mere party talk ; but one point of more than partizan inter- 
est was touched upon in the strife. It was maintained that it was 
entirely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution for the executive 
to veto a revenue bill.^ It was indeed true that the Constitution 
had reserved to the House the exclusive right to originate such 
bills; 3 but the Senate was not prohibited, either expressly or by 
implication, from rejecting or amending them ; nor was the Presi- 
dent precluded from vetoing them. Analogies were drawn from 
the English procedure in similar cases, but were misleading. We 
have already seen that the veto power in England had totally dis- 
appeared more than one hundred years before the time of President 
Tyler's administration. Moreover, the English kings were depend- 
ent upon Parliamentary votes for their revenues, and therefore 
would not have refused their assent to appropriation bills even if 
they had not lost the veto. It would have been vetoing their own 
means of support. The error in the argument becomes even more 
apparent when we consider that, during the time that the English 
veto was becoming obsolete, the American veto was growing in 
strength and scope. In the United States the power had long 
ceased to be used simply as a check upon unconstitutional meas- 
ures, and had come to be freely used when a President considered 
a bill inexpedient. 

If there was nothing in the Constitution condemning these 
vetoes, was there anything in that document requiring them } 
There was not. They were, however, directly confirmatory of the 
act of 1 84 1 already referred to. This act, with its proviso, was con- 

1 Congressional Globe, 27 Cong., 2 sess., 700. 

2 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, II, 460. 

3 Art. I, Sec. 7, § i. 



72 I'^eto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

sidered an important element of the Compromise of 1833. That 
compromise, while it was of course not a part of the Constitution, 
nevertheless bore a peculiar character as a settlement between 
the sections of the country of a great question of policy. It had, 
in consequence of this character, been recognized by the Supreme 
Court of the United States as somewhat above an ordinary act.^ 
While it is impossible to consider the tariff vetoes a defence of 
the Constitution, it is equally impossible to call them mere meas- 
ures of expediency or the exercise of the President's personal 
whims. They occupy a curious and somewhat anomalous position 
midway between expediency and constitutionality. 

February 22, 1869, President Johnson vetoed a bill increasing 
the duty on the import of copper and copper ores.^ The bill was 
passed in the interests of certain mines on Lake Superior which 
were in a much depressed condition. It was, in short, a bill for the 
protection of home industries, and was vetoed by the President 
on the ground that it would diminish the revenue of the govern- 
ment by curtailing imports, would impose an additional tax on an 
already overburdened people, and would destroy certain manufac- 
tories which were much more extensive and important than the 
industry it was proposed to protect. He also pointed out that the 
bill could not be called a protective measure in any fair acceptation 
of the term, since it appeared to assume that the need for which 
provision was to be made was inherent and permanent. 

In the House, a sharp debate arose upon the veto. The ques- 
tion was mainly as to the advisability of a policy of protection in 
general and in this particular instance. It was argued that other 
industries had been protected ; therefore copper should be.^ Mr. 
Schenck took occasion to remark that the veto should only be used 
to protect the executive and to prevent unconstitutional legislation.* 
These two views, together with the natural animosity of Congress 
toward President Johnson, procured the passage of the bill over 
the veto. 

§ 54. Refunding the direct tax. — Bills affecting the relations 
between the States and the general government have seldom been 
called in question by the President. Twice, however, the veto has 

1 Aldrige v. Williams, 3 Howard, i. 
^ Appendix A, No. 73. 

2 Congressional Globe, 40 Cong., 3 sess., 1461-1466. 
* Ibid., 1465. 



§§ 53. 54-] Direct Tax. 73 

been interposed, in both cases to prevent undeserved paym^nL.s of 
money to the States. 

July 14, 1832, a bill was presented to President Jackson entitled, 
" An act providing for the final settlement of the claims of States 
for interest on advances made during the war." President Jackson 
disposed of the bill by a pocket veto,^ and early at the next session 
of Congress he sent to the Senate his reasons for withholding his 
approval. It adopted, he said, a principle in regard to the allow- 
ance of interest to the States contrary to the rule which had been 
uniformly followed by the government up to that time. 

A more recent and much more important proposition has been 
that of refunding a tax duly collected from the several States. 
March 2, 1889, President Cleveland vetoed a bill entitled, "An 
act to credit and pay to the several States and Territories, and 
the District of Columbia, all moneys collected under the direct tax 
levied by the act of Congress approved August fifth, eighteen hun- 
dred and sixty-one. " ^ The purpose of the bill is sufficiently ex- 
plained by its title. It was argued in support of the measure that 
the money due from most of the Southern States never had been 
paid and could not now be collected, and that therefore it was an 
act of justice to those States which had paid the tax to refund to 
them the money they had advanced. 

The President objected to the bill first because there was noth- 
ing in the Constitution which in his opinion warranted such an ap- 
propriation. The original tax was laid and collected in a constitu- 
tional manner, and could not be considered in any sense as a debt 
due by the United States either to the States or to the individuals 
who had paid the tax. It was, so the President held, a sheer gratu- 
ity, and as such was wholly unconstitutional. 

But the President objected to the bill on other than constitu- 
tional grounds. He considered it most unwise to familiarize the 
people with the principle that the government might be called 
upon to repay a tax whose validity and constitutionality were not 
even questioned, simply because a portion of it had not been col- 
lected. He might have added that should this principle be rigidly 
enforced scarcely one of the multitude of taxes levied by the United 
States government could remain unrefunded. The last and most 
practical of the President's objections was that the method of dis- 

1 Appendix A, No. 15. ^ Ibid., No. 433. 



74 ^^^^ Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

tribution adopted by the bill was extremely unjust, and that in fact 
distribution on a just basis was an impossibility. The bill pro- 
vided that in certain cases the money was to go unconditionally 
into the State treasuries, while in other cases it was to be returned 
to those who had paid the tax, or to their legal representatives. 
The President maintained that the tax had been collected from 
individuals and should in justice be returned to individuals. But 
in many cases the original tax-payers were neither alive nor repre- 
sented, while in other cases those alive could not be found. In 
short it would be impossible to return the money to those who had 
paid it, or to their representatives, and to return it to any one else, 
or even to the State, would be wholly unjustifiable. 

The bill was passed over the President's veto in the Senate, and 
in the debate incident to that passage the doctrine was laid down 
by Senators Sherman and Stewart that bills should be vetoed only 
upon constitutional grounds,^ a doctrine which is without founda- 
tion, and which sounds strange at the present day.^ 

§ 55. Bank charter vetoes. — Turning now from the vetoes re- 
lating to the raising of revenue, we come to those which relate to 
what for lack of a better title may be called the care of the reve- 
nue. The place of deposit of government funds has always been 
a subject of solicitude ever since the government had funds to 
deposit. Three different Presidents have so far recognized this 
solicitude as to veto bills granting charters to banks. 

§ 56. Madison's Bank veto. — January 30, 1815, President Madi- 
son vetoed a bill for the charter of the Second Bank of the United 
States of America.^ In this message the President passed over 
the constitutional arguments against the charter of the bank on 
the ground that the constitutionality of the question had been 
settled by the repeated recognition of the validity of a national 
bank. Madison's objection to the charter was based wholly on its 
inefficiency. The avowed objects of the bill were to strengthen 
the public credit, to furnish a currency, and to make loans to the 
government during the existing war. These objects the President 
thought could not be attained under the present measure, and he 
therefore vetoed it. This veto was interesting as marking a gradual 

1 Congressional Record, 50 Cong., 2 sess., 2612. 

- A more elaborate discussion of the right of the President to veto bills for reasons 
of expediency will be found in §§ 121-123. 
3 Appendix A, No. 7. 



§§ 54-57-] Bank Charters. 75 

change in the ground upon which veto messages were based. Most 
of the earlier vetoes of importance had been founded wholly on 
constitutional principles ; occasionally the argument of expediency 
was added. In the present case it was upon expediency alone that 
the President made objections. The veto is one of the first of the 
long series in which the President has asserted a difference of judg- 
ment between himself and Congress as the only reason for refus- 
ing assent to a bill. 

§ 57. Jackson's Bank veto. — In 1816, however, another bank 
bill was presented to Madison, who signed it ; and under the act 
the second United States Bank was organized. In 1832 an attempt 
was made to recharter the bank, and Jackson interposed his veto.^ 
In this case the question of constitutionality, which President Madi- 
son had considered as irrevocably settled in the affirmative, was 
revived by President Jackson, who insisted that the general ques- 
tion was still open, and further, that the charter contained in the 
present bill was unconstitutional in details. 

In a previous chapter President Jackson's bank veto has been 
considered in its bearing on the contest between the legislative 
and the executive branches of the government.^ It has also an 
important bearing on the exercise of the financial powers of the 
government, which must be considered here. The President af- 
firmed that he had as much right as the Supreme Court to declare 
an act unconstitutional. He then proceeded to justify the veto on 
constitutional grounds, and quoted the Supreme Court in support 
of his position. His principle seems to be that the decision of the 
Supreme Court was good law so far as he agreed with it, but of no 
effect where he disagreed. The decision to which President Jack- 
son appealed had declared that a bank was a "necessary" means 
for carrying into effect the powers of government, and that it was 
therefore constitutional ; that Congress might employ this means 
at its discretion, and that the question of the degree of necessity 
must be left to Congress. President Jackson then goes on to say 
that the decision acknowledges the right of Congress to decide 
whether a bank and the details of its organization are necessary 
and proper ; that the President, as part of Congress, may decide 
for himself whether the provisions of the act are necessary and 
proper ; and that if the provisions are not in his opinion necessary 
and proper then the act is unconstitutional. The court declared 

1 Appendix A, No. 14. ^ Ante, § 19. 



76 Veto Power : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

the action of Congress constitutional, but Jackson succeeded to 
his own satisfaction in deducing the conclusion that if Congress, 
or any part thereof, should afterward hold another opinion, the act 
then in operation was unconstitutional. 

Acting in accordance with this rather curious chain of reason- 
ing, the President proceeded to declare the bill for the recharter 
of the bank unconstitutional, because he disapproved it. He 
thought it unnecessary that Congress should grant the monopoly 
without allowing open competition for it, particularly since much of 
the stock in the bank seeking a recharter was held by foreigners. 
He thought it unnecessary that the bank should have power to 
locate its branches where it thought fit. It is impossible in this 
connection, however, to go into all the curious financial ideas 
embodied in the veto message. It is sufficient to say that Presi- 
dent Jackson reversed the decision of President Madison as to the 
constitutionality of the bank charter, and supported his position 
by a distorted argument. 

§ 58. Tyler's Bank veto. — John Tyler when in the Senate had 
supported Jackson in his attack on the bank ; had agreed with 
Van Buren in his opposition to the revival of the bank ; and 
felt sure that the " popular voice " approved Van Buren's course. 
When in 1841 he unexpectedly became President, he found him- 
self obliged to accept the Whig policy of a bank, and agreed to 
give his assent to any bank bill that was constitutional. Notwith- 
standing the symptoms of a breach with their President, the 
Whigs passed a bank bill through Congress. It was not a bill 
that satisfied anyone,^ but it accomplished the object of forcing an 
issue with the President. It was generally considered certain that 
the President would not listen to dictation, at least in this matter ;2 
and no one was really very much surprised when the Senate 
received a message on August 16, 1841, vetoing the bill.^ 

The President's reasons for vetoing the bill were twofold. In 
the first place he declared that approval would be inconsistent with 
his previous expressions on the subject."^ In the second place the 

1 Niles, Register, LXI, 93. 

2 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, II, 424. 

2 Appendix A, No. 23; Benton, Thirty Years in the U. S. Senate, II, chaps. Ixxv, 
Ixxxi-lxxxiii. 

■* Von Hoist declares that "Tyler had too little firmness of character and too much 
vanity to be able to face the reproach that he had been unfaithful to his earlier convic- 
tions, because he did not dare defy the Whigs." — Constitutional History of the United 
States, II, 425. 



§§ 57. 58-] Jacksojis and Tyler s Bank Vetoes. yy 

President considered the bill unconstitutional because it estab- 
lished a bank with power to locate branches wherever it chose 
without the consent of the States within whose boundaries the 
branches were to be placed. This position is scarcely tenable. 
The Supreme Court had decided that a national bank was a neces- 
sary and proper means for carrying on the government, and there- 
fore constitutional. But if the government was to make use of 
this constitutional agent in the conduct of its affairs, — in collect- 
ing revenue, establishing revenue, and furnishing currency, — it 
must surely have the power to put the bank, or its branches, where 
they would be most effective ; yet this is the very power which 
is denied by President Tyler. Clearly he was wrong : for if the 
Constitution gave the government the power to establish a bank 
without the consent of the States, the consent of the States was 
not essential for the establishment of necessary branches of the 
bank. 

The Whig leaders at once drew up a bill designed to avoid the 
objections against the first bill. It was entitled, "An act to pro- 
vide for the better collection, safe keeping, and disbursement of 
the public revenue, by means of a corporation to be styled the 
Fiscal Corporation of the United States." September 9, 1841, 
Tyler vetoed it.^ The President's main objection to this bill, as 
to the last one, appears to be that the bank could establish 
branches in the various States without their consent. He also 
objected to the provision which allowed the bank to deal in bills 
of exchange drawn in one State, payable in another, and running 
an unlimited time. He further objected to the failure to place a 
limit on the premium on these bills. Since the measure had been 
drawn by the Whigs in accordance with the ideas and wishes 
expressed by the President, the veto greatly enraged them. That 
portion of the debate in Congress which is reported consists for 
the most part of a very sharp arraignment of the President by 
Mr. Botts,^ in which he discussed in no gentle fashion Tyler's 
vacillating political policy. During the course of his speech, he 
took occasion to say " that the President had changed his opinion 
since this session opened just as often as the sun had risen, and 
it had lasted now some one hundred and twenty days." ^ 

1 Appendix A, No. 23. 

2 Congressional Globe, 27 Cong., I sess., 447-449. ^ Ibid., 448. 



78 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

§ 59. Criticism of the Bank vetoes. — Whatever the causes of 
Tyler's vetoes, however unsound his constitutional positions, and 
however justified the wrath of the Whigs, there can scarcely be 
any doubt that he did the country good service when he vetoed 
the bank bills. The creation of such a huge machine as the " Fis- 
cal Corporation," closely connected with the government and par- 
ties as it must have been, could not have gained the confidence 
of bankers and financiers, and would always have been an object 
of party attack, and a fatally easy means of corruption and political 
dishonesty. 

After the retirement of Tyler, the Whigs never again controlled 
both Houses and the executive at the same time ; the Demo- 
crats finally established the independent treasury system inau- 
gurated under Van Buren and repealed in 1841, and were in 
principle opposed to a bank. The Republican party created the 
compromise system of numerous so-called national banks, and there 
has been but one instance in which a President has felt called upon 
to interpose his veto even against details of bills affecting that 
system. 

Congress in 1881 passed an act retiring the "new fives" issued 
under the funding act of 1870, and authorizing in their stead three 
and one-half per cent bonds which were to run forty years. March 
3, 188 1, President Hayes vetoed the bill on the ground that it was 
a " step in the direction of the destruction of the national banking 
system." 1 It provided that after July i, 1881, no bonds could be 
deposited by national banks as security which bore a greater inter- 
est than three per cent. This provision the President declared 
would prevent the future establishment of national banks except 
in the few large financial centres where the prevailing rates of 
interest are extremely low. The measure would also threaten the 
existence af the banks already established through the additional 
disadvantages to which it would subject them. The President 
then briefly referred to the great success of the national bank 
system with its almost indispensable advantages, and concluded 
that he could not approve any measure which, like the present 
one, unnecessarily attacked that system. 

§ 60. Currency and coinage. — Closely connected with the 
tariff and bank bills, are bills w^ich treat of currency and coinage. 

^ Appendix A, No. 128. 



§§ 59) 6o.] Banks and Currency. 79 

Vetoes of such bills have been comparatively few in number, but 
some of them have been exceedingly interesting. 

March 3, 1837, at "11.45 p-M." President Jackson signed the 
veto of a bill entitled, " An act designating and limiting the funds 
receivable for the revenues of the United States." ^ The bill was 
intended to repeal or nullify the specie circular. The friends of 
the measure had declared it to mean that the deposit banks and 
the Secretary of the Treasury must receive the notes of all specie 
paying banks in payment of duties or for public land. The Presi- 
dent on the other hand held that the bill merely permitted the 
secretary and the deposit banks to receive the notes of specie pay- 
ing banks. In this position he was supported by the Attorney 
General, who, however, considered the meaning of the bill ambigu- 
ous and liable to misinterpretation. The President did not review 
the bill either as interpreted by himself and the Attorney General, 
or as interpreted by its friends. He declared it to be ambiguous, 
and vetoed it for that reason. It is not difficult, however, to read 
between the lines of the message that the President's real objec- 
tion to the measure was that it nullified the specie circular.^ 

The disposition made of this veto message is somewhat remark- 
able and strictly Jacksonian. It was signed within fifteen minutes 
of the end of the President's term of office. He could not send it 
to the existing Congress, and when the next Congress met, Jack- 
son would be a private citizen without opportunity to submit a 
pocket veto message. He was determined, however, that his views 
on the subject should be left on record; he therefore caused 
the message, together with the bill and the Attorney General's 
opinion on it to be deposited in the Department of State. ^ It is 
the only instance in which a veto message has been thus preserved 
instead of in the journals of one or both of the Houses. 

June 23, 1862, President Lincoln vetoed a bill entitled, "An 
act to repeal that part of an act of Congress which prohibits the 
circulation of bank notes of a less denomination than five dollars 
in the District of Columbia."* The President objected to the bill 
on the ground that if a few banks were privileged to issue such 
notes, all the banks in the District would issue them, whether 

^ Appendix A, No. 21. 

2 BoUes, Financial Histoi-y of the United States, II, 350. 

3 Senate, Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 151. 
* Appendix A, No. 50. 



8o Veto Power : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

with or without authorization, and that it would be impracticable 
to prevent such unauthorized issue. The natural effect would be 
a deterioration of the currency in the District of Columbia, to 
the serious injury of trade. The President further suggested that 
the object contemplated, namely, providing the District with small 
bills, could be easily and unobjectionably attained by government 
issues. 

§ 6i. Inflation bill. — April 22, 1874, President Grant vetoed 
what is commonly known as the inflation bill,^ providing that the 
issue of legal tender notes and of national bank-notes should each 
be increased to four hundred million dollars. The President 
pointed out that the bill practically increased the paper circulation 
of the country one hundred million dollars, and would eventually 
lead to a still greater inflation of the currency. His fear was justi- 
fied. For it is a fact proved by experience that the more irre- 
deemable paper a government issues, the greater is the call for it, 
and the greater the apparent scarcity of money. 

The President added that not only was he opposed to inflation 
on principle, but that in this particular instance the government 
had practically pledged itself to contract the irredeemable cur- 
rency instead of inflating it. In support of his assertion, he 
quoted the statement made by Secretary McCulloch at the close 
of the war to the effect that specie payment should be resumed 
as soon as possible ; and the warm approval of that principle by 
the House of Representatives on December 5, 1865.^ Further- 
more, on March 18, 1869,^ Congress had passed an act which 
solemnly pledged the faith of the United States to make provision 
at the earliest practicable period for the redemption of the United 
States notes in coin. 

Inflation was urged upon Congress by the "debtor class,"* — 
a class which at that time may even have included some Con- 
gressmen. Throughout the country men were eager for inflation 
as a means of raising prices, and thus diminishing their burdens 
of debt. 5 The President had argued incidentally that inflation 
would impair the obligation of contracts, both public and private. 

1 Appendix A, No. 92. 

2 Congressional Globe, 39 Cong., i sess., 10. 

3 16 Stats, at Large, i. 

* House Report, 43 Cong., 2 sess., No. 328. 

5 Bolles, Financial History of the United States, III, 285. 



§§ 6o-62.] Inflation Bill. 8i 

Arguments put forward in Congress indicated not only that the 
measure might impair the obligation of contracts, but that such 
impairment was its very object. The Constitution wisely prohibits 
such legislation by the States; and justice to the creditors of the 
nation, and regard to the honor of the government demand that 
the United States should not be less scrupulous, except in the 
face of the most urgent national danger. 

The veto is to be commended not only on financial grounds 
and as a defence of the national honor ; nor merely because it 
prevented an unwarranted interference with existing contracts ; 
but on strictly constitutional grounds. At the time the inflation 
bill was passed, the issue of irredeemable notes as legal tender was 
considered unconstitutional, except as a necessary incident of the 
exercise of the war power. ^ Hence President Grant declared the 
inflation bill not warranted by the Constitution. The fact that 
the issue of legal tender notes by the government has since been 
declared constitutional for all purposes did not make it so in 1872. 
The Constitution is a growth, upon a basis represented by the 
written document, and the growth has been rapid in many direc- 
tions in the past fifteen years. Changes have been introduced by 
custom and by interpretation, without going through the wellnigh 
impossible process of formal amendment. Thus the principle seems 
established by legislation and confirmed by judicial decision, that 
Congress may make government notes legal tender.^ President 
Grant's position as to the constitutionality of legal tender issues 
by the government was therefore sound according to the principles 
generally accepted in 1872. 

§ 62. The Bland silver bill. — President Grant's veto practically 
disposed of inflation through irredeemable paper, and was a striking 
illustration of the strength of the veto. But although the green- 
back party rapidly became a thing of the past, the determination 
to increase the currency remained, and took on the somewhat 
altered form of the silver movement. One of the measures which 
resulted was known as the Bland Silver Bill. It passed Congress 
in February, 1878, and was vetoed on the twenty-eighth of the 
same month. ^ 

1 See 12 Wall., 457; also, the resolutions of the House of Representatives and Sec- 
retary McCulloch's statement, to which reference is made above. 

2 no U. S. Reports, 421. 
^ Appendix A, No. 117. 



82 Veto Power: — Exercise of Pozuers. [Ch. iv. 

President Hayes placed the veto purely on grounds of expedi- 
ency. The proposed dollar was worth from eight to ten cents less 
than a gold dollar. The President pointed out that in time, even 
at the limited rate at which it was to be coined, the silver must 
drive out the gold, in accordance with the law, so frequently exem- 
plified in our own financial history, that the less valuable money v/ill 
drive the more valuable from circulation. The result of this process 
would be an increase in prices and a corresponding scaling of debts, 
both public and private, contracted on a gold basis. 

The President then referred to the public debt, which had been, 
contracted in gold, and which the national honor demanded should 
be paid in coin of equal value with gold.^ Furthermore, the Presi- 
dent pointed out that when, in his administration, bonds to the 
amount of about $225,000,000 were refunded at 4 per cent, the 
government authorized the statement that the government would 
not " sanction or tolerate the payment of either the principal or in- 
terest of those bonds in any coin of less value than gold." Should 
the depreciation likely to result from the bill set in, these obliga- 
tions might be cancelled by offering a smaller value in silver. By a 
decided vote of both Houses, the act was passed over the veto, and 
during the last twelve years has been in operation. Gold has not 
yet been driven out ; but once or twice the Government has been 
very near the point where it would have had to pay its regular dis- 
bursements on the public debt in silver.^ Should the time ever 
come when gold shall have completely disappeared from circula- 
tion, the evils predicted by the President may arise. So far, the 
growth of business has absorbed the additional currency ; and the 
use of certificates has prevented the silver specie from becoming 
burdensome. 

§ ^'}^. Expenditure of public money. — The power of taxation in 
the Constitution of the United States is hedged about by many 
specific provisions as to the manner and uniformity of levy. The 
appropriation power is, on the contrary, in its nature connected 
with the exercise of all the other forms of government. Money 
may be spent in war, in the public service, for national objects of, 

1 Mr. Bolles points out that it was intended by both parties to the contract — i.e., the 
United States and the buyers of the bonds — that they should be paid in gold. Financial 
History of the United States, III, 391. 

2 February, 1884, and August, 1884. Mill, Principles of Political Economy (Laugh- 
lin's edition), 323. 



§§ 62-64.] Silver Bill and Expenditures. 83 

all kinds. Special interests push doubtful measures : private in- 
dividuals beg for relief or reward. The loose and irresponsible 
method of conducting financial legislation by unrelated committees 
leads to waste. It is, therefore, not strange that the largest single 
class of vetoes relates to the expenditure of public money. 

In addition to the riders upon appropriation bills, which are, 
strictly speaking, financial measures,^ the most important vetoes of 
this kind are those affecting the payment of claims on the govern- 
ment, those affecting pensions, and those affecting internal im- 
provements. 

§ 64. French spoliation claims. — The first of these vetoes in 
point of time were those of the French spoliation bills. In the 
course of the Napoleonic wars, three sets of claims arose against 
France for illegal seizure of vessels and other violations of neutral 
rights. The first set, arising from 1793 to 1800, were considered in 
the negotiation of 1800. With the counter claim of France upon 
the United States lor the non-performance of the guaranty of the 
treaty of 1778, these demands were reserved for future negotiation.^ 
The hot-headed blundering of the Senate and the shrewd manage- 
ment of Bonaparte caused the United States afterward altogether 
to abandon recourse to France ; ^ and the merchants and others 
ao-o-rieved then looked to the United States for reimbursement. 

00 

Their request was admitted to be just,* and attempts were made at 
various times to secure appropriations to satisfy it ; but it was not 
until 1846 that a bill was passed. It was vetoed by President Polk 
Aug. 8, 1846.^ He objected to the bill in the first place because 
the claims had been before Congress for many years, and, if just, 
would have been paid long before ; in the second place, he urged 
that, at that precise moment, the country needed all its funds to 
prosecute the Mexican War. A third objection was that the pay- 
ment was to be made in land scrip, which, in the President's opin- 
ion, would prevent the settlement of the public land, and would be 
unjust to the States within whose boundaries the public land lay. 
Finally the President, with a sudden and suspicious thoughtfulness 
for the claimants, argued that the bill was unjust to them, since it 

1 See ante, § 35. 

2 Henry Adams, Administration of Thomas Jefferson, I, 360-363. 

3 Schouler, History of the United States, I, 479. 
* Ibid., I, 479, note. 

^ Appendix A, No. 32. 



84 Veto Power : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

obliged them to relinquish all other claims upon the payment of 
those included in the bill. 

In 1855 Congress again passed a bill for the satisfaction of 
these claims. It was vetoed by President Pierce.^ He reiterated 
all the reasons which President Polk had advanced against the 
measure, dwelling with special emphasis on the fact that such 
noble patriots as Madison and Jefferson would not have allowed 
the claims to go unsatisfied if they had been just, but quietly ignor- 
ing the fact that Congress must pass the necessary acts before 
any President could approve them. 

The veto message then reviewed the history of the whole dis- 
cussion between France and the United States, and came to the 
following conclusions. The United States, by the Consular Con- 
vention of 1800, did not give up the claims of American citizens 
against the French, nor agree to satisfy them herself ; all the pre- 
tensions which the French could be brought to consider valid were 
allowed by France in 1803 ; and it was the allowances then made 
and paid which the present bill proposed to satisfy a second time. 
In short. President Pierce was satisfied that the United States 
had fully discharged her duty to her citizens in pressing their 
claims; that France had honorably paid all just demands; and 
that for these reasons the bill should be vetoed. 

The President's conclusions were erroneous. In the first place, 
the Convention of 1800 did surrender the claims of the American 
ship-owners. Clause 2 of that Convention provided that the 
spoliation question should be left open for future settlement. The 
United States Senate struck out this clause. Napoleon ratified 
the treaty, adding a proviso to the effect that by the retrenchment 
of the second article each country was understood to renounce the 
pretensions which constituted its object.^ The United States Sen- 
ate ratified the treaty with this proviso attached, thus abandoning 
the claim which the President said had not been renounced. 

In regard to the argument that in 1803 France agreed to pay 
for all the claims which she could be brought to consider valid, 
the answer is complete. The sum which France promised to pay 
was for debts ^ owed by France to citizens of the United States, 
and did not include spoliation claims. Indeed, it expressly 

1 Appendix A, No. 56. 

2 Schouler, History of the United States, I, 479. 

^ United States Treaties and Conventions, 280, Art. I. 



§§64-66.] French Spoliation Claims. 85 

excluded indemnity for prizes whose condemnation had been 
confirmed.^ 

§65. Relief bills. — Under the Constitution no appropriation 
of money can be made except by Congress. It follows that no 
claim can be paid without express provision of law. Hence a con- 
siderable part of our legislation is made up of private acts for the 
benefit or relief of individuals. Since 1861 the usual number of 
such acts has been increased by claims arising out of the war. 
Many of the measures have been intended to relieve persons from 
obligations to the United States, or from punishments inflicted by 
the United States laws ; others are for the purpose of reimbursing 
soldiers and contractors for pecuniary loss suffered in the national 
service. As one would naturally expect, there have been among 
these measures many which defrauded the government of money, 
or unjustly relieved individuals from their obligations to the gov- 
ernment, or from their disabilities under the law. The veto has 
been freely used in preventing the acknowledgment of these spuri- 
ous claims, and has in this service amply justified its existence. 
The vetoes of relief bills can be roughly divided, according to the 
grounds upon which they rested, into five classes. 

§ ^^. Bills defrauding the government of money. — The first class 
includes those bills which would have fraudulently secured from 
the government a grant of money, and also those which would un- 
justly have relieved individuals from contract obligations to the 
United States. ^ It comprises, therefore, all such measures as 
would have unfairly deprived the government of money. This 
class is very well illustrated by the veto numbered 80. The bill 
granted money to the children of John M. Baker for his services 
as charge d'ajf aires in Rio Janeiro in 1834. The facts were that 
he had not been charge d'affaires in that year, and on the contrary 
had been forbidden to enter into diplomatic correspondence with 
Brazil. The bill was very properly vetoed by President Grant. 
Another example is the bill granting exorbitant remuneration to 
contractors for furnishing supplies to the Kansas Indians.^ The 

1 United States Treaties and Conventions, Art. V. 

"^ No less than twenty-eight such bills have been vetoed; the first in Pierce's admin- 
istration, eight by Grant, seventeen by Cleveland. Appendix A, Nos. 37, 47, 49, 76, 77, 
•60, 86, 89, 93, 98, loi, 133, 210, 250, 271, 272, 278, 282, 291, 299, 316, 346, 366, 372, 
388,390,407,411. 

^ Appendix A, No. 93. 



86 Veto Power: — Exercise of Pozvers. [Ch. iv. 

second section of the first class includes bills relieving individuals 
from contract obligations. Among them is a bill to relieve certain 
mail contractors from loss suffered in complying with the terms of 
their contract.^ The loss was caused by curtailing, in accordance 
with a provision of the contract, the number of trips made by the 
mail-carriers. Another bill excused a revenue collector from the 
use of that degree of diligence which the law required him to 
exercise, or, in other words, absolved him from the results of his 
own carelessness.^ 

§ ^J. Bills relieving deserters from the army. — The second class 
includes four bills relieving deserters from the United States Army 
from the legal effect of their desertion.^ One of these bills was 
passed over the veto on the ground that the man was not a de- 
serter.* 

§ 68. Bills relieving former army officers of disability. — Two 
bills were vetoed whose object was the restoration of former army 
officers to the active list, by relieving them of disabilities.^ The 
latter of these bills was for the relief of Fitz John Porter, and 
is of considerable constitutional interest, from the fact that it 
quite openly attempted to appoint Porter to his old position in the 
Army. This question has, however, already been considered.^ 
Porter had been found guilty by a court-martial duly appointed 
and composed of officers of distinguished ability, and the sentence 
had been approved by President Lincoln. President Arthur, in 
view of these facts, vetoed the bill, not only because it usurped 
executive authority, but because in relieving Porter it "established 
a dangerous precedent, calculated to imperil in no small measure 
the binding force and effect of the judgments of the various tribu- 
nals established under our constitution and laws." " 

§ 69. Bills carelessly drawn. — Several relief bills have been 
vetoed because they were so carelessly drawn that they would not 
have accomplished their intended objects.^ The bill for the relief 
of Daniel H. Kelly may be taken as an example. It was passed 

1 Appendix A, No. 49. 2 ibid., No. 89. 

3 Ibid., Nos. 94, 97, 103, 114. These vetoes were all in the administration of Gen- 
eral Grant, who may be supposed to have felt a special interest in cases of military 
discipline. 

* Appendix A, No. 103. ^ Ibid., Nos. 106, 132. 

^ Ante^ § 29. 

■^ Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 457b. 

8 Appendix A, Nos. 79, 113, 124, 307. 



§§ 66-71.] Relief Bills. 8/ 

to benefit Kelly's heirs, but it was pointed out in the paper accom- 
panying the veto message that the bill as it stood would be of no 
advantage to them. 

§ 70. Miscellaneous relief bills. — The last class includes vetoes 
which could not be fairly classified under any of the preceding 
heads. 1 Two of the bills were for the extension of patents which 
the needs of the government and the public welfare seemed to 
demand should not be extended. Several of the bills were to 
compensate the owners of houses and other property destroyed on 
the ground of military necessity by the United States armies in 
the Civil War. These bills came up in President Grant's adminis- 
tration, and he objected to them on the ground that the destruc- 
tion was necessary, and was for the public good, and that if the 
bills were approved it would open the way for the presentation of 
a vast number of similar and equally good claims, calling for the 
expenditure of very large sums of money. The veto for the relief 
of Major J. T. Turner gave rise to the very interesting question of 
parliamentary law as to whether a President could recall a veto 
message before Congress had voted upon it. The question will 
be discussed in a later chapter.^ 

§ 71. Pension vetoes. — With the exception of five unimportant 
bills disapproved by President Grant, no bill granting a pension 
has been vetoed by any President save Cleveland. For this fact 
there are several reasons. In the first place, the veterans of the 
previous wars almost invariably received land where now pensions 
would be granted. Furthermore, the government, before 1861, 
was never rich enough to enter upon an extensive system of money 
pensions. After the Civil War the circumstances were altered. 
Good public land was no longer abundant ; the government, owing 
to the prosperous condition of the country, rapidly and easily accu- 
mulated large sums of money. This circumstance naturally gave 
rise to a system of pensions on a large scale. With the increasing- 
surplus, less and less scrutiny was bestowed on private pension 
bills. In consequence a very great number of wholly unworthy 
claims received the assent of Congress, and it was against this 
rising tide of fraudulent or unnecessary pensions that President 
Cleveland set hirnself. 

1 Appendix A, Nos. 74, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 109, 116 (Grant); 373, 406 (Cleveland). 

2 Post, § 108. 



88 Veto Poiver: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

The pension vetoes comprise two hundred and thirty-three of 
the four hundred and thirty-three vetoes enumerated in Appendix 
A, and for the purposes of discussion they have been divided into 
the following five classes. 

§ 72. Bills conveying no benefit. — The first group includes 
thirty-four bills which would have been of no benefit to the claim- 
ant, either because of some technical fault in the bill itself, or 
because the proposed beneficiary would receive at least as great a 
pension under some general law as under the special act, or be- 
cause the pension under the general law would begin to run at a 
much earlier date than under the special act.^ 

§ 73. Unnecessary increase of pensions. — The third class in- 
cludes ten bills increasing pensions which in the President's opin- 
ion were already large enough.^ 

§ 74. Injuries not received " in the line of duty." — The fourth 
and largest group of bills includes those granting compensation 
for injuries which had not been received while "in military service 
and in the line of duty." Here are found the greatest number, — 
one hundred and seventy-five, — and the most important of Presi- 
dent Cleveland's pension vetoes. It was in regard to these bills 
that the President and Congress came squarely into conflict.^ 

§ 75. Dependent relatives: dependency not proved. — Congress 
passed many bills granting pensions to persons who claimed to 
be dependent for their support upon soldiers killed or disabled 
in the war. Six of these bills failed to obtain the President's 
approval because the " dependency " of the person pensioned upon 
the injured soldier was not made out.* 

§ ^6. Miscellaneous pension bills. — There are a few bills which 
do not come legitimately under any of the preceding heads. One 
granted back pay unjustly;^ another was the claim of an alleged 

1 Appendix A, Nos. 81, 82, 83, 95, 104 (Grant), 137, 168, 178, 189, 194, 196, 204, 208, 
21 1, 219, 233, 248, 249, 255, 258, 265, 266, 267, 275, 284, 290, 318, 337, 340, 358, 391, 400, 
424, 430 (Cleveland). 

2 Appendix A, Nos. 138, 160, 165, 203, 242, 268, 269, 270, 323, 432 (Cleveland). 

3 Appendix A, Nos. 140-155, 159, 162-164, ^^66, 167, 169-177, 179-181, 183-188, 
190-193, 195,197-202,205, 207, 209,212-218,220-226,228-231, 238-241,243-246, 
251 -254, 256, 257, 259, 260, 263, 274, 279, 281, 283, 285-289, 292, 295, 296, 297, 300, 
324, 327, 329.333-336,338. 339-342,343,348-356, 359, 360, 363-365, 367-371,375- 
385, 392-396, 398, 399, 402-405, 408-410, 412, 413, 415,417-423,426-429, 431 
(Cleveland). 

* Appendix A, Nos. 161, 182, 206, 247, 264, 280 (Cleveland). ^ Ibid., No. 156. 



§§ 7I-77-] Pensions. 89 

widow who proved not to be a widow ; ^ a third was the claim of a 
woman who had had a pension as the widow of a soldier killed in 
the war, but who had lost her pension by remarrying, and who 
now wished it renewed, although she was still married and was 
living with her husband.^ Five granted pensions to men who had 
deserted from the army.^ 

§ ']y. The Dependent Pension Bill. — The most important of all 
the pension bills which encountered the veto was not, however, a 
private act for the benefit of an individual, but a general and far- 
reaching law. February 11, 1887, President Cleveland vetoed a 
bill entitled, " An act for the relief of dependent parents and 
honorably discharged soldiers and sailors who are now disabled 
and dependent upon their own labor for support." * The bill 
granted service pensions to all honorably discharged soldiers and 
sailors who were not at the time of the passage of the act, or 
who should not, at any future time, be capable of supporting 
themselves by their own labor, and who are dependent on their 
daily labor for support, regardless of whether they had received 
any injury in the service or even had been engaged in battle. 
The President objected to the bill in the first place because in his 
estimation the wording of the proposed law was so indefinite as to 
give rise to conflicting constructions, and to be liable to unjust 
and mischievous application. In support of his statement he 
quoted the conflicting opinions in regard to the operation of the 
bill expressed on the floors of Congress.^ The looseness of phra- 
seology, and the fact that the proof necessary for the establish- 
ment of claims was largely within the knowledge of the claimants 
alone, would still further stimulate fraudulent applications for pen- 
sions and put a "premium on dishonesty and mendacity."^ The 
President argued also that the bill was uncalled for, because the 
soldiers of the Civil War had been better provided for by pay and 
bounty than any other soldiery "since mankind first went to war," 
and because most ample laws had been passed which granted pen- 
sions for any injury actually received in the service of the United 
States. Lastly, the President pointed out that the expense of 
the proposed law would probably be many times the estimate. In 
support of this argument, he cited the case of the pension granted 

1 Appendix A, No. 330. 2 ibid., No. 389. 

8 Ibid., Nos. 343, 357, 361, 397, 416. * Ibid., No. 261. 

s House Journal, 49 Cong,, 2 sess., 571. ^ Ibid., 572. 



9© Veto Power: — Exercise of Poivcrs. [Ch. iv. 

in 1853 to the widows of the soldiers of the Revolutionary War, 
which had cost the government nearly eight times as much as had 
been expected. 

The debate in Congress over the veto was very sharp.^ The 
opponents of the veto were both indignant and outspoken ; they 
called attention to the President's inconsistency in signing the 
Mexican War service pension bill, and characterized his objections 
as flimsy ; they charged him with favoring the solid South and 
Wall Street. 

§ ']%. President Cleveland's pension policy. — In his veto of the 
Dependent Pension Bill, President Cleveland took a bold stand 
against a popular measure, in behalf of economical government. 
The same general principles appear in the vetoes of private 
pension bills, classified in paragraphs 71 to 76 above. There the 
President repeatedly and clearly stated what he considered to be 
the wise policy ; and it was in the discussion of these vetoes that 
the congressional hostility to the policy was manifested. 

The position of the executive may be briefly defined as a desire 
to check the indiscriminate and often fraudulent granting of pen- 
sions. In the veto of a bill granting a pension to Elizabeth S. 
De Krafft, the President says : " In reviewing the pension legisla- 
tion presented to me, many bills have been approved upon the 
theory that every doubt should be resolved in favor of the pro- 
posed beneficiary. I have not, however, been able to entirely 
divest myself of the idea that the public money . . . should be 
devoted to the indemnification of those who in the defence of the 
union have worthily suffered." ^ Again he says: " Every relaxa- 
tion of principle in the granting of pensions invites applications 
without merit and encourages those who for gain urge honest men 
to become dishonest. Thus is the demoralizing lesson taught that 
as against the public treasury the most questionable expedients 
are allowable." ^ The President was, in short, attempting avowedly 
to defend the public money, the public morals, and the disabled 
soldier. 

The President's policy was severely attacked in Congress, on 
the ground that his conclusions as to the unjustifiable character 

^ Congressional Record, 49 Cong., 2 sess., 2200, 2202, 2210, 2222. 
2 Appendix A, No. l6S; Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 53, 
p. 489. 
8 Ibid. 



§§ 77-79] President Cleveland' s Pension Policy. 91 

of the pensions were incorrect ; and that, even if these conclusions 
had been correct, his overruHng of congressional decisions on 
matters of fact was unconstitutional.^ Both of these charges 
must be examined. 

§ 79. Expediency of the pension vetoes. — The first charge is 
of no very great weight. The Senate Committee in their elaborate 
report admit that the President was legally correct, but claim 
that Congress should be allowed for equitable reasons to be more 
lenient than the laws which it had enacted. A reading of the 
messages and an examination of the evidence will however con- 
vince any candid person that even on equitable grounds the Pres- 
ident was in most cases correct. At the time the report of the 
Senate Committee was made, the President had vetoed one hun- 
dred and thirty-six pension bills.^ Out of these, the Senate could 
find only seven bills in which the apparent injustice of the veto 
was sufficient to make them the subject of investigation. One 
of these bills was ultimately discovered to have been wisely vetoed, 
thus leaving six bills in the treatment of which the Senate Com- 
mittee claimed that the President had been unjust.^ The con- 
clusion seems inevitable that in one hundred and thirty cases the 
President was correct, not only as a matter of law, but also as a 
matter of justice. The information on which the President acted 
was in almost every case derived from the pension office ; and a 
few illustrations, which are chosen almost at random and might be 
multiplied indefinitely, will show more clearly than argument why 
the Senate Committee was unable to point to any considerable 
number of cases where the veto was unwisely used. William 
Bishop was enrolled as a substitute in Indianapolis and served 
nine days, when he was attacked with the measles ; he was 
shortly afterward mustered out. Fifteen years later the claimant 
suddenly discovered that his attack of measles had some relation 
to his army enrollment, and that his disease had settled in his eyes 
and affected his spinal column.^ In another case a former soldier 
was accidentally shot and killed by a neighbor who was attempting 

^ Senate Report, 50 Cong., i sess., No. 1667. 

2 Ibid., 1667, 3. 

3 These bills are Nos. 310, 289, 315, 281, 309, and 280 of Appendix A. 

* Appendix A, No. 177; Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 
53. P- 478- 



92 Veto Poiver: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

to shoot an owl. The widow claimed a pension.^ Again, James 
O'Shea applied for a pension on the ground of a sabre-wound and 
a gun-shot wound received in 1862 while serving in the army. 
There was no evidence that the man ever received the wounds, a 
tact which the committee reporting the bill admitted ; but in spite 
of the facts, they were of the opinion " that, situated as he was, 
he was very liable to, and very probably did receive the wound." ^ 
These illustrations show the foundation upon which most of the 
vetoed bills rested. All sorts of diseases and calamities are traced 
by an almost impossible chain of circumstances to service in the 
army, one woman tracing her husband's death by drowning to 
rheumatism contracted in the service, and claiming a pension in 
consequence.^ 

§^80. Constitutionality of the pension vetoes. — In regard to the 
J^^j^-d charge, the members of the Senate Committee had more to 
**lay. They declared that " it cannot be maintained upon any fair 
construction of the Constitution that the power of executive disap- 
proval ought to be exercised upon acts of this character for the 
sole reason that the President differs in opinion from Congress 
upon a mere question of the weight of testimony, or upon the expe- 
diency of a special act, which subserves a proper general purpose 
and which imperils no power of any other department." ^ They 
further argued that the veto had been granted to the President as 
a protection to the executive and to prevent the passage of notori- 
ously bad or unconstitutional laws, and that President Cleveland's 
policy implied that a factious or usurping President might right- 
fully subordinate the legislature to his will by an exercise of the 
veto.° 

It is only necessary to go back to President Johnson's time to 
refute the last argument. The statement with regard to the 
intended scope of the veto power is more difUcult to meet, for it is 
true that in 1789 the veto was regarded as a means of protecting 
the executive and the Constitution, and was seldom used when the 
question was simply one of expediency. The gradual increase of 

^ House Journal, 50 Cong., I sess., 181 1; Appendix A, No. 292. 

- Appendix A, No. 153; Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 

53. P- 476. 

8 Ibid., p. 496; Appendix A, No. 179. 
^***"'»«-*'* Senate Report, 50 Cong., I sess., 1667, p. 2. 
5 Ibid., pp. 3, 4. 



§§ 79-82.] Discussion of Pension Vetoes. 93 

the number of vetoes based on expediency will be elsewhere con- 
sidered.i It \^ sufficient in the present connection to notice that 
this long growth culminated in President Cleveland's pension 
vetoes. Here we find Congress protesting against what it calls an 
unconstitutional use of the veto. It is, however, a use which is 
permitted by the Constitution, which has frequently been made, 
which has become more common of late years, and in which Presi- 
dent Cleveland persisted unchecked up to the day of his retirement 
from office. As a result, we must admit what indeed has been con- 
ceded practically for many years, that the interpretation of the 
Constitution in this particular, as in so many others, has somewhat 
changed, and that, in the future, the right of a President to veto a 
bill on grounds of expediency cannot be questioned. 

§ 81. Summary of the question of pension vetoes. — The con- 
clusion in regard to President Cleveland's pension vetoes may be 
summed up as follows : The facts in the various cases would war- 
rant the refusal of the President to approve the bills on grounds of 
expediency, and the present interpretation of the Constitution 
admits the right of the President to assign reasons of expediency 
for a refusal to approve a bill. Furthermore, the President's action 
was exceedingly timely. In the first place, it saved the country 
from what was, to put the best construction on it, a large and use- 
less expenditure of money. The great service which the pension 
vetoes performed, however, was in checking the spirit of reckless 
pension legislation. The great prominence which they gave to the 
question emphatically called the attention of the country to it, gave 
rise to a strong sentiment against the reckless granting of pensions, 
quickened the Congressional conscience, and made it more difficult 
for doubtful claims to succeed. 

§ 82. Commercial powers. — It is very remarkable that, while 
the Presidents have relentlessly vetoed financial measures of all 
kinds, the only great classes of bills affecting commerce which 
have been selected for executive disapprobation are the tariffs and 
the bills for internal improvements. Shipping acts, embargoes, 
bankruptcy acts, and railroad acts have passed unquestioned. The 
tariff bills have already been considered under the head of taxation, ^ 
since the veto messages covering them have treated them rather as 
financial than as commercial measures. Internal improvement bills 

ipw/, §§ 121, 123. 2^«^^, §53. 



94 Veto Power : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

have formed one of the most numerous classes, and present a well- 
defined succession of vetoes through many administrations. 

Before taking up internal improvements, however, it may be 
well to dispose of a few minor acts relating to commerce. 

July I, 1882, President Arthur vetoed a bill to regulate the car- 
riage of passengers by sea, on the ground that the measure was 
drawn in such ignorance of the existing method of building ocean 
steamers that its provisions would render useless for passenger 
traffic all the modern ocean steamships.^ 

May 17, 1886, President Cleveland vetoed a bill making Spring- 
field, Mass., a port of delivery, on the ground that it would produce 
confusion and uncertainty in the adjustment of customs duties, and 
lead to irritating discriminations and probable loss to the govern- 
ment.^ 

§ 83. Internal improvements. — The appropriation bills so far 
considered have authorized government expenditures for the bene- 
fit of individuals, as, for example, the pension bills and the French 
spoliation bills. Another class contains those bills which have 
authorized expenditures ostensibly for the benefit of all. These 
are the bills appropriating money for internal improvements ; they 
are bills which have been important and numerous almost since the 
foundation of the government, and have frequently met with strong 
opposition from the executive. They have called for the expendi- 
ture of enormous sums of money, and are exemplified at the pres- 
ent time by River and Harbor bills and by bills for the erection 
of public buildings. 

§ 84. Madison's veto of a general bill. — The first distinct meas- 
ure for internal improvements was the Cumberland Road Act of 
1806. The first veto was interposed by Madison in 1817.^ The 
measure was entitled, "An act to set apart and pledge certain 
funds for internal improvements." 

The bill is important as marking the real rise of the question of 
internal improvements. On all sides it was admitted that internal 
improvements should be made, but there was a difference of opin- 
ion as to whether the Constitution authorized the expenditure of 
money for that purpose. The supporters of the bill held that it 
was constitutional because its object was to improve internal 
commerce between the States and to provide for the common 

1 Appendix A, No. 130. ^ Ibid., No. 139. ^ ibid., No. 8. 



§§ 82-85.] Madison on Internal Improvements. 95 

defence. Calhoun argued that the Constitution should be con- 
strued " with plain good sense," and that, under such a construc- 
tion, Congress had power to construct roads and canals as a means 
of providing for the general welfare.^ 

The President, in his veto message, maintained, as he had sug- 
gested in his annual message of December 3, 1816,^ that the gov- 
ernment should undertake internal improvements ; but he argued 
that it could not be done without a constitutional amendment. He 
maintained that it could not be included under the authority of 
Congress to regulate commerce ; for the present bill was for the 
purpose of constructing roads and canals, or, in other words, of 
creating commerce, which he considered a very different thing 
from regulating it. Furthermore, the President did not think that 
the power could be included under the general welfare clause. 
Such a view "would be contrary to the established and consistent 
rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enu- 
meration of powers which follows the clause, nugatory and im- 
proper";^ it would embrace every act "within the purview of a 
legislative trust";* and would give Congress complete power on 
every matter not specially excepted, whereas the Constitution par- 
ticularly reserves to the States all powers not conferred on Con- 
gress nor prohibited to the States." 

The President was close upon the end of his term of office when 
he wrote the message. There is every appearance that he intended 
it as a warning against too free an application of the principle of 
implied powers in support of the doctrine that internal improve- 
ments should be carried on by the national government. 

It is of interest to note that, upon the consideration of the 
President's veto in the House of Representatives, the Speaker, 
Henry Clay, claimed and exercised the right to vote. There was 
no tie, but he asserted that the question of the passage of a bill 
over the President's veto differed in its nature from every other 
question which could come before the House.^ 

§ 85. Monroe's Cumberland Road veto. Constitutionality of im- 
provements. — May 4, 1822, President Monroe, in his only veto 

1 Von Hoist, Life of Calhoun, 36-37. 
^ Statesman's Manual, I, 335. 

^ Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 17. 
* Ibid. 5 Amendment X. 

^ Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 18; also Annals of 
Congress, 14 Cong., 2 sess., 1062. The question is further considered /oi-/*, § 1 10. 



96 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

message, refused to sign "An act for the preservation and repair of 
the Cumberland Road."^ The President held that Congress had 
a constitutional right to make appropriations for internal improve- 
ments, provided it had the consent of the State in which the im- 
provement was to be made. But the present bill went further, and 
established tolls and provided for their collection. In the Presi- 
dent's opinion, it was implied that Congress had a complete right 
of jurisdiction and sovereignty over the land of the various States 
for all the purposes of internal improvement ; the bill was therefore 
unconstitutional. In short, the President considered that Congress 
had the constitutional power to "apply money" to internal im- 
provements, but did not have authority to construct them. It was 
a reflection of what Dr. Von Hoist calls the "quibble over words," ^ 
which characterized the internal improvement discussions of that 
time. In conclusion, the President pointed out the advantage of 
having internal improvements carried on by the national govern- 
ment ; and, like Madison, he recommended a constitutional amend- 
ment to enable this to be done. 

President Monroe's position is essentially different from that 
of President Madison. The latter considered it unconstitutional 
for Congress to make internal improvements in any way. He did 
not recognize any distinction between "appropriating money " for, 
and "constructing," internal improvements. Indeed, this fine dis- 
tinction was created to avoid the constitutional difficulty raised by 
President Madison. The country demanded an improvement of 
its means of internal communication, and it was necessary to find 
some way out of the hard-and-fast doctrine laid down by Madison. 
To admit the constitutional right and then to hedge it about with 
limitations of detail seemed to Monroe a statesmanlike way of 
meeting the difficulty. His doctrine gave way, however, to a 
broader view ; the difference between "appropriating" and "con- 
structing" was lost, and the only question was: Does Congress 
have the constitutional authority to appropriate money for internal 
improvements } And, as we shall see, this query resolved itself 
into the question whether the intended improvement was or was 
not national in its character. 

§ 86. Jackson's vetoes. Jurisdiction and local character. — May 
27, 1830, President Jackson vetoed a bill entitled, "An act to 

1 Appendix A, No. 9. 

2 Constitutional History of the United States, I, 389. 



§§ 85, 86.] Monroe on Internal hnprovements. 97 

authorize a subscription of stock in the Maysville, Washington, 
Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company." ^ In this message 
the President laid it down as a well-settled rule that the United 
States could not assume jurisdiction over State territory for the 
purpose of constructing or maintaining internal improvements. He 
then went on to say that Congress had power to appropriate money 
for internal improvements whenever the objects were "general, 
not local ; national, not State." ^ Although this principle had been 
referred to by President Monroe,^ it was now for the first time 
clearly laid down as that by which to test the constitutionality of 
internal improvements. President Jackson considered the meas- 
ure before him local in its character, and in accordance with his 
new rule he vetoed it. He closed his message with an appeal for 
a constitutional amendment to define clearly the limits of the im- 
portant power over internal improvements. 

When the message came up for consideration in the House of 
Representatives a most bitter controversy took place. The debate 
had little or no bearing on the merits of the veto, and was hardly 
more than a personal attack on the President by his enemies, and 
a violent defence of him by his friends.^ 

May 31, 1830, President Jackson vetoed a bill authorizing a 
subscription of stock in the Washington Turnpike Road Com- 
pany.^ For his reasons in this case the President referred Con- 
gress to his veto of the Maysville Road bill. 

December 7, 1830, the President, in his annual message, gave 
his reasons for the pocket veto of two bills at the last session of 
Congress, entitled respectively, " An act making appropriations 
for building light-houses, light-boats, beacons, and monuments, 
placing buoys, and for improving harbors and directing surveys " ; ^ 
and " An act to authorize a subscription of stock for the Louisville 
and Portland Canal Company."" These bills were vetoed like the 
two already considered, because in the opinion of the President a 
portion of the authorized expenditure was for purely local improve- 
ments. 

The last of Jackson's internal improvement veto messages is by 

1 Appendix A, No. lo. 

2 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 79. 
8 Ibid., 61. 

* Congressional Debates, 1829-30, Vol. VI, Part II, 1140-1147. 

^ Appendix A, No. II. ^ Ibid., No. 12. " Ibid. No. 13. 



98 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch, iv. 

far the most interesting. In it he expresses clearly his conception 
of a constitutional internal improvement, and applies the principle 
with true Jacksonian simplicity. December i, 1834, in his annual 
message, the President sent to Congress his reasons for failing to 
sign at the last session a bill entitled, " An act to improve the navi- 
gation of the Wabash River." ^ In this message the President 
divides the constitutional question into three parts. He discusses 
in the first place the "power of the national government to make 
internal improvements within the limits of a State, with the right 
of territorial jurisdiction sufficient at least for their preservation 
and use"; secondly, the right of appropriating money in aid of 
such works when carried on by a State, or by a company in virtue 
of State authority, without claim of national jurisdiction ; thirdly, 
the propriety of making appropriations for light-houses, beacons, 
public piers, and for the removal of sand-bars and other temporary 
obstructions in navigable rivers and harbors. Jackson's position 
on the first two points has been sufficiently explained in connec- 
tion with his previous vetoes. He did not think the government 
had any jurisdiction over the improvements, but nevertheless 
thought that money might be appropriated for improvements of a 
national character. He again insists that, there should be a con- 
stitutional amendment defining national improvements, and, in his 
discussion of the third point, lays down a curious rule for deter- 
mining, in the case of river and harbor improvements, those that 
are national in character. Expenditures of this character, he said, 
must be confined to places below the ports of entry or delivery 
established by law. Since the improvement authorized by the bill 
under discussion was to be made at a point on the Wabash River 
above any port of entry or delivery, the President concluded that 
the bill was unconstitutional. The utter futility of this, or indeed 
of any hard-and-fast principle, was demonstrated the 'day after the 
reception of the President's message. The Senate introduced a 
resolution for the improvement of the Wabash River identical with 
the vetoed measure, and included in it a provision making Lafay- 
ette, which is situated higher up on that river, a port of entry.^ 
The resolution passed the Senate, but was never acted upon by 
the House. The episode not only illustrates the worthlessness of 
the President's criterion, but also the impossibility of securing an 

1 Appendix A, No. i8. 

2 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 149. 



§§ 86, 87.] Jackson on Internal Improvements. 99 

amendment of the Constitution sufficiently definite to meet the 
President's suggestion. Indeed, if it could be secured, such an 
amendment would not be desirable, for the Constitution is a docu- 
ment embodying broad principles, and does not attempt to settle 
questions of detail or of expediency. 

§ 87. Tyler's vetoes. Improvement of ■water-'ways. — Like Madi- 
son and Monroe, Jackson was not consistent in his vetoes. They 
all three approved other bills not different in principle from those 
vetoed. Appropriations continued under Van Buren and Tyler, 
and it was not till late in the administration of the latter that we 
find another veto of an internal improvement bill. June 11, 1844, 
President Tyler returned, with his objections, "An act making 
appropriations for the improvement of certain harbors and rivers." ^ 

In the first place, the President argued that to appropriate 
money for the improvement of streams is to exercise United States 
jurisdiction over them, and is accordingly unconstitutional. This 
conclusion is unsound ; for the bill merely appropriated money, and 
in no way claimed authority over the land or water of any State. 
The supporters of the measure contended that it came under 
the clause in the Constitution which gives Congress power to regu- 
late commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and 
with the Indian tribes. The President demurred, on the ground 
that "the plain and obvious meaning of this grant is that Congress 
may adopt rules and regulations prescribing the terms and condi- 
tions on which the citizens of the United States may carry on 
commercial relations with foreign States or Kingdoms, and on 
which the citizens or subjects of foreign States or Kingdoms may 
prosecute trade with the United States, or either of them. But 
the power to regulate commerce among the several States no more 
vests Congress with jurisdiction over the water-courses of the 
States than the first branch of the grant gives authority over the 
waters of foreign powers." ^ Comment on this remarkable state- 
ment is scarcely necessary. At the time it was written it was 
well-settled law that navigation and intercourse upon the national 
navigable water-ways is under the regulating control of Congress 
whenever the water-way is not limited to a single State.^ 

1 Appendix A, No. 29. 

■^ Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess.. No. 53, p. 182; Appendix A, 
No. 29. 

3 Cooky's Principles of Constitutional Law, 65; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat, i (1824). 



100 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

In closing his message the President hints at a reason upon 
which the message might have rested, namely, that the bill appro- 
priated money for improvements, some of which are purely local 
in character. This was a recognition of the principle which was 
referred to by President Monroe and adopted by President Jack- 
son, and which has since become the main criterion in deciding as 
to the constitutionality of internal improvements. 

§ 88. Polk's vetoes. Local improvements. — August 3, 1 846, 
President Polk vetoed a bill making appropriations for the im- 
provement of certain harbors and rivers.^ The President refused 
his sanction to the bill on the ground that its provisions were local 
and not national in character. In endeavoring to determine what 
are national river and harbor improvements he revived President 
Jackson's test,^ and attempted to improve upon it. He admitted 
that many times ports of entry had been created on paper only, 
and for the sole purpose of making some intended improvement 
plausible. He then went on to say that if the test be a sound one 
it could apply only to bays, inlets, and rivers connected with or 
leading into such ports as actually have foreign commerce.^ This 
amendment hardly improves the test, since it would never be diffi- 
cult to develop a foreign trade, even from a "paper port" of entry, 
sufficient to satisfy the Congressional conscience. This veto mes- 
sage met with strong opposition in the House,* but mainly from 
those Congressmen whose districts would have received appropria- 
tions under the bill. 

On December 15, 1847, President Polk sent to Congress his 
reasons for not signing at the last session of Congress a bill en- 
titled, " An act to provide for continuing certain works in the 
Territory of Wisconsin, and for other purposes."^ The bill was a 
typical river and harbor bill, and appropriated only six thousand 
dollars for continuing works in Wisconsin, and more than half a 
million for improving in other States rivers and harbors, many of 
which Were unknown and valueless. 

The President considered that when the country was borrowing 
money to carry on a war, as was the case at that time, large sums 

^ Appendix A, No. 31. 

2 Ante, § 86. 

2 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 188. 

* Congressional Globe, 29 Cong., i sess., 1 1 83- 1 189. 

^ Appendix A, No. t^t^. 



§§ 87-89.] Tyler and Polk on Improvements. loi 

should not be appropriated for improvements. He then took up 
the constitutional question : he apparently admits the authority of 
Congress to appropriate money for national improvements, but 
comes to the conclusion that it is practically impossible to draw 
any line or principle between deepening a harbor capable of admit- 
ting only small sailing craft, and deepening a harbor capable of 
receiving large ships. " I cannot perceive," he says, " any inter- 
mediate ground. The power to improve harbors and rivers for 
purposes of navigation . . . must be admitted without other limi- 
tation than the discretion of Congress, or it must be denied alto- 
gether." 1 This difficulty resolves itself into a question of fact and 
not into a settlement of constitutional points. The constitutional 
rule is plain enough, but Polk seemed to think the selection of 
suitable places so far beyond the wisdom of Congress that he 
considered it unwise for the national government to engage in 
making internal improvements. The President, however, recog- 
nized that some works were indispensable, and suggested that the 
States be allowed to lay tonnage duties for this purpose. The 
States may, under the Constitution, lay such duties, with the con- 
sent of Congress,^ and the President referred to many instances 
where that consent had been given.^ In conclusion, he advocated 
the passage of an amendment to the Constitution granting Con- 
gress the power to appropriate money for internal improvements, 
in States in which it was impossible to lay tonnage duties. 

The debate on this message was of no particular moment. It 
was enlivened by a sharp speech of Mr. Schenck,^ in which he 
classified, in an amusing manner, the various tests as to the consti- 
tutionality of internal improvements, and concluded by practically 
including all improvements as national in their influence. 

§ 89. Pierce's vetoes. Implied powers. — Had Tyler been in 
sympathy with the party which chose him, he would not have op- 
posed internal improvements ; the next Whig Presidents, Taylor 
and Fillmore, vetoed no bill of any kind. Fillmore's Democratic 
successors, however, again set forth the doctrine to which their 
predecessors, Jackson and Polk, had given life. 

1 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 198.- 

2 Constitution, Art. i, Sec. 10, Clause 2. 

^ Thirteen instances are referred to where tonnage duties were laid with the consent 
of Congress for the purpose of internal improventients by Mass., Va., N. C, S. C, Ga, 
* Congressional Globe, 30 C-ong., i sess., 37. 



I02 Veto Power: — Exercise of Pozvers. [Ch. iv. 

August 4, 1854, President Pierce vetoed a bill making appro- 
priations for the completion of certain public parks. ^ December 
30, 1854, the President sent to Congress a careful statement of 
his reasons for vetoing the bill, and at the same time took occasion 
to state his position on the question of internal improvements. 
He held that the national government should not make appropria- 
tions for internal improvements, unless the improvements were 
necessary to the execution of the enumerated powers of Congress.^ 
The President's principle seems to be that when an improvement 
was plainly and directly for the benefit of the army or the navy, 
or was necessary for the establishment of post roads or the regu- 
lation of commerce, it was constitutional. He does not in terms 
call the improvement of rivers and harbors for commercial purposes 
unconstitutional, but leaves it to be inferred that, in most cases, 
such improvements would be unauthorized. In closing his message 
the President recommends a return "to the primitive idea of Con- 
gress, which required, in this class of public work, as in all others, 
a conveyance of the soil, and a cession of the jurisdiction of the 
United States."^ Furthermore, he advised that the appropriation 
for each work be made in a separate bill.^ The advantages of the 
last suggestion are obvious, and in recent years the attempt has 
frequently been made to accomplish much the same end, by allow- 
ing the President to veto items in appropriation bills.^ 

In May and August, 1856, President Pierce vetoed five internal 
improvement bills.^ The President, in accordance with the rule 
which he laid down in his message of December 30, 1854, objected 
to the bills now under discussion, because they were not directly 
essential to the exercise of the powers of Congress, but were parts 
of a general system of internal improvements. Congress was not 
in a mood to submit to the President's views, and it passed each 
of the five bills over the veto ; this was the first case in which an 
internal improvement veto had failed to check legislation. 

^ Appendix A, No. 35. 

2 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 225. 

3 Ibid., p. 234. ■I Ibid., p. 235. 

5 See posi, § 134. There was practically no discussion of this message in Congress, 
Congressional Globe, 33 Cong., 2 sess., 161. 

6 May 19, Mouth of the Mississippi River, Appendix A, No. 38. May 19, Channel 
over the St. Clair Flats, Appendix A, No. 39. May 22, Channel over St. Mary's River 
Flats, Appendix A, No. 40. August 11, Des Moines River, Appendix A, No. 41. Au- 
gust 14, Patapsco River, Appendix A, No. 42. 



§§ 89-9 1 •] Pierce and Buchanatt on Improvements. 103 

Several interesting points of procedure came up on the passage 
of the bills over the veto. On the consideration of the first one 
(May 19, 1856) the President of the Senate decided that the bill 
would pass if two-thirds of the Senators present, instead of two- 
thirds of the entire Senate voted in favor of it. An appeal was 
taken from the ruling, but it was sustained by a vote of 34 to 7,^ 
and remains the principle accepted by the best interpreters of 
the Constitution.^ 

The Senate on tbe consideration of the fourth and fifth mes- 
sages (August II and 14) failed in the first attempt to pass the 
bill over the veto. In each case, however, the vote was reconsid- 
ered several days later, and the necessary two-thirds majority was 
obtained.^ 

§ 90. Buchanan's vetoes. Constitutional grounds. — February I, 
i860. President Buchanan sent to the Senate his reasons for fail- 
ing at the last session of Congress to sign an act making appro- 
priation for the deepening of the channel over the Saint Clair 
Flats, in Michigan.* The channel had already been improved, 
and the present bill was to provide for additional, and in the 
President's opinion, unnecessary, dredging. More than this, he 
considered the bill unconstitutional. For his reasons on the latter 
point, he referred to President Polk's veto of December 15, 1847,^ 
in which, it will be remembered. President Polk argued that it was 
unconstitutional for the national government to carry on any in- 
ternal improvements, and advocated the authorization of State 
tonnage duties. The President restated Polk's reasoning at some 
length, and added nothing to it. 

February 6, i860. President Buchanan sent to the Senate a 
message stating that he had failed to sign at the last session of 
Congress a joint resolution appropriating money for removing 
obstructions to the navigation of the Mississippi River, for the 
reasons set forth in his veto message of February i, i860.® 

§ 91. Grant's veto and refusal to carry out a bill. — From i860 
to 1882 there were no internal improvement vetoes. The neces- 

^ Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, p. 255. 

2 Post, § 109. 

3 Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong., 2 sess., No. 53, pp. 257, 258, post, §111. 
* Appendix A, No. 45. 

5 Anie, § 87. 

^ Appendix A, No. 46. 



104 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

sities of the Civil War cut off this form of expenditure ; and 
when in 1870 the finances of the government permitted the re- 
sumption of the pohcy, the Repubhcan party was found in much 
the same attitude as that of the Whigs. August 14, 1876. Presi- 
dent Grant in signing a river and harbor bill protested strongly 
against certain of its provisions. In the first place he objected to 
numerous appropriations in the bill which were for improvements 
in no sense national. In the second place the President doubted 
the advisability of making any appropriations further than to pro- 
vide for the protection of works already finished and paid for, in 
view of the probable falling off of the internal revenue. The 
President declared that he would not have approved the bill had 
it been obligatory upon the executive to spend all the money 
appropriated by Congress. Since he was not under such an 
obligation, the President, although he had signed the bill, informed 
Congress that he should take care that, during his term of office 
at least, no public money should be expended upon improvements 
which were not of a national character. This was a new way of 
defeating the provisions of an internal improvement bill, and it 
was a means that could be made very effective during at least one 
administration. 

The authority under which President Grant made the state- 
ment is found in the first paragraph of the act which reads : "the 
following sums of money . . . are hereby appropriated, to be paid 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, for the 
repair, preservation, construction, and completion of the following 
works." ^ It may seem like an unwarranted stretching of the 
sense of the clause to make it mean that the executive may do as 
he chooses about carrying out the provisions of a bill ; but no 
objection was made to the President's interpretation. Indeed, it 
has become the practice of the executive to withhold expenditures 
upon works plainly of no value ; but the open avowal made by 
President Grant of his determination not to carry into effect a 
law duly passed by Congress and approved by himself, has not 
been repeated.^ 

8 92. Arthur's veto. Local objects. — A few years later, the 
appropriations had so increased in amount that President Arthur 

1 19 U. S. Stats, at Large, 132. 

2 Gen. Grant vetoed an unimportant internal improvement bill (App. A, No. 102) 
on the ground that the objects of the appropriations were most of them local. 



§§ 9I-94-] Improvements and Public Bidldings. 105 

felt compelled, August i, 1882, to veto a river and harbor bill. 
His reason for this action was that the bill contained provisions 
of a purely local character, and was therefore unconstitutional. 
The bill was promptly passed over the veto. In the next session 
the Senate took the unusual course of calling upon the President 
to name the items in the bill which he considered of local impor- 
tance. The President pointed out items aggregating almost one 
million dollars.^ 

§ 93. Public buildings. — Besides the bills for the improvement 
of various means of communication, roads, canals, and water-ways. 
Congress has passed a large number of measures for improve- 
ments of an entirely different kind, the construction of public 
buildings. The first President to check this legislation was Cleve- 
land. In the messages there could of course be no question of 
constitutionality ; the buildings authorized by the bills were for 
the accommodation of the United States courts, for post-offices, 
and for revenue offices — buildings which Congress is expressly 
authorized to erect in the different States upon such sites as may 
be purchased with the consent of the State legislatures.^ The 
ground which the President took in each of the vetoes was, there- 
fore, that there was no necessity for the erection of the building 
called for by the bill ; that the needs of the government were well 
satisfied, and the proposed structure was merely to gratify local 
pride. ^ 

§ 94- G-eneral vie-w of internal improvement vetoes. — Before 
leaving the subject, it may be well briefly to sum up, in so far 
as it is possible, the effect of the internal improvement vetoes. 
President Madison based his dissent on the broad ground that the 
Constitution as it stood did not authorize such undertakings by 
the national government. President Monroe agreed with the 
principle, but held that it applied to cases where the United States 
undertook to "construct" roads and canals, and not to cases 
where Congress merely appropriated money for improvements 
which were national in character, and over which Congress did not 
claim jurisdiction. After Monroe's time, the distinction between 
"constructing" and "appropriating" seems to have been almost 

1 Papers of the American Historical Association, III, 192. 
'^ Constitution, Art. i, Sec. 8, Clause 17. 

8 The vetoed bills were twelve in number: Appendix A, Nos. 157, 158, 227, 234, 
235. 237» 294, 308, 312, 313, 314, 374. 



io6 Veto Power : — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

forgotten. The constitutional question has been simply whether 
Congress has the power to appropriate money for internal improve- 
ments ; and the existence of such authority has generally been 
held to depend on the national character of the proposed improve- 
ment. The great difificulty has therefore been to decide what was 
national and what was local. President Jackson's rule in regard 
to river improvements proved valueless ; and President Polk, after 
trying to find some satisfactory criterion, came to the conclusion 
that there was none, and that therefore internal improvements 
were not provided for under the Constitution. As a substitute for 
national aid he recommended that the States be allowed to lay 
tonnage duties. This plan was also recommended by President 
Buchanan, and has many things in its favor. It is in accordance 
with the principle of local self-government, which was wisely made 
fundamental in our system, and it would probably put a stop to 
much of the reckless extravagance in carrying out internal im- 
provements. The consent of Congress which would still be neces- 
sary for each State act imposing tonnage duties would probably 
keep them uniform and just. President Pierce was more liberal 
than Polk, and advocated such improvements as were essential to 
the exercise of the well-defined powers of government — as, for 
example, the war power. But he lays down no definite rule, and 
he therefore leaves the discussion in the vague state against which 
President Polk protested so vigorously. The recent internal im- 
provement vetoes have all been based on the local character of 
the bills, but no attempt has been made to define a "local pro- 
vision." The Presidents have simply passed upon the items before 
them. 

At present the question of the constitutionality of internal im- 
provements carried on by the national government is no longer 
discussed in Congress. By common consent the question of prin- 
ciple is disregarded, and each state and section of the country 
eagerly seeks to obtain as much as possible for itself, without much 
thought of possible consequences in centralizing the power of the 
government. The real justification of the internal improvement 
measures is that they are essential to the carrying out of some of 
the express powers of government. Many of the improvements 
are necessary incidents of the regulation of commerce ; while 
the right to establish post roads and the military necessities of 
the government have been invoked as a warrant for others. 



§§ 94-96] Disaission of Internal Improvements. 107 

§ 95. Measures based on the general welfare clause. — The at- 
tempt has frequently been made to justify internal improvement 
bills under the general welfare clause of the Constitution, a use of 
that clause which several of the veto messages have justly treated 
as unwarranted. 1 In spite of executive warnings, however, Con- 
gress, becoming gradually aware of the great possibilities of this 
indefinite clause, has passed acts for the relief of unfortunate peo- 
ple. Such was the act for the benefit of the San Domingo refu- 
gees, and the act for the relief of sufferers from flood, which could 
be justified only under the general welfare clause. In the internal 
improvement bills, the principle was put forward as a collateral 
reason for the constitutionality of the measures. In the bills just 
referred to, and in the Texas Seed bill, the general welfare clause 
is put forward as the sole constitutional justification for the pro- 
posed legislation. The practice is in substance an addition to the 
express powers of the government of the United States, and is 
open to grave objection. It is at this point in our system of gov- 
ernment that the greatest watchfulness is necessary, lest a gener- 
ous impulse open the door to the passage of bills attacking private 
rights instead of remedying private misfortunes. The danger of 
centralization is perhaps a distant and imaginary one, but the dan- 
gers of waste, of extravagance, of discriminations between citizens, 
and of accustoming the people to depend upon the government, 
are certainly near and real. 

§ 96. Texas Seed Bill. — Against this dangerous tendency Presi- 
dent Cleveland set himself in his veto of the bill authorizing a spe- 
cial distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas. ^ 
The President vetoed the measure on the ground that there was 
no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution ; that the 
relief of individual suffering which is not properly related to the 
public service and benefit is not the duty of the national govern- 
ment. He argued, further, that not only is such aid not justified 
by the Constitution, but that it would tend to weaken the sturdi- 
ness of our national character and the thoughtfulness of the people 
for each other. The President closed by pointing out that if Con- 
gressmen wished to aid the Texans, they could do so very easily 
and in an entirely constitutional way by transferring to the repre- 
sentatives of the drought-stricken districts their orders upon the 
Commissioner of Agriculture for seeds. 

^ Ante, § 84. 2 Appendix A, No. 262. 



io8 Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. [Ch. iv. 

When the veto message came up in the House, Mr. Lapham, 
who introduced the bill, spoke briefly in opposition to the message.^ 
He referred to similar acts passed in 1875 and 1883, and said that 
if it was constitutional for the Department of Agriculture to dis- 
tribute seeds at all, it certainly was justified in this case. This 
argument overlooks the fact that, by the bill, the Department of 
Agriculture was not to perform its regular work, but to act as the 
agent of the government in distributing the special appropriation 
made to relieve the sufferers in Texas. The veto was, however, 
effective in checking the proposed legislation ; and it lays down a 
principle which, if observed, must be of permanent value to the 
country. The government is too busy and too remote to examine 
into or to relieve cases of individual distress ; and the States which 
leave the work of charity to the general government must expect 
that government also to assume powers which the States would 
gladly retain. 

§ 97. War powers. — A few bills have been vetoed which had 
reference to the exercise of the war power of Congress. None of 
these bills were general in their scope, and all of them failed of 
executive approval solely on the ground of their inexpediency ; 
no constitutional questions were touched upon. 

The first military bill which failed of approval was vetoed Feb- 
ruary 28, 1797. It was entitled, "An act to ascertain and fix the 
military establishment of the United States."^ 

The President refused his assent because the bill was drawn in 
a careless manner, and because the soldiers whom the bill pro- 
posed to muster out were needed by the government. When the 
message was read in the House, one or two speakers thought that 
the President's objections were not well taken. ^ The debate was, 
however, short, and it is evident from the vote, that the great 
majority agreed with the President. 

July 2, 1862, President Lincoln vetoed a bill entitled, "An act 
to provide additional medical officers of the volunteer service.* 
The President refused to sign the bill because he had already 
approved one for the same purpose. 

July 14, 1870, President Grant vetoed an act which provided 

^ Congressional Record, 49 Cong., 2 sess., 1875. 
2 Appendix A, No. 21. 

^ Annals of Congress, 4 Cong., 2 sess., 2331. 
* Appendix A, No. 51. 



§§ 96-98-] General Welfare. War Powers. 109 

for the payment of bounties to men in the first and second regi- 
ments of Florida Cavalry and in the first Alabama Cavalry.^ The 
men in these regiments or their heirs had already received or were 
receiving their bounties. The bill altered the amount of the boun- 
ties in many cases, and also the order in which the heirs of the 
soldiers should inherit the bounties : it would therefore be exceed- 
ingly difficult, and in many cases unjust, to apply the act; and the 
President vetoed it.^ 

January 15, 1877, President Grant protested against a joint 
resolution authorizing the Secretary of War to supply the Reform 
School in the District of Columbia with blankets, on the ground 
that the act would deprive the army of blankets which could not 
be spared.^ The protest was not sent with the resolution, as is 
generally the case, but was sent to Congress in the manner of a 
veto message, the President retaining the resolution. Later, the 
President signed it, and it became law. 

The pension and relief vetoes are at the same time military 
and financial. They have been sufficiently considered in the ear- 
lier pages of this work.* 

§ 98. General effect of the veto on the exercise of the powers 
of government. — Before concluding this part of our subject, a 
few vetoes must be mentioned which do not fit into any of the 
preceding classes, and which are not of sufficient importance to 
warrant separation into additional classes. The bills were all 
either needless or improperly drawn. The first of these vetoes 
was interposed by President Lincoln to prevent the passage of a 
bill which was not drawn in a satisfactory manner.^ July 20, 1876, 
President Grant vetoed a bill amending the post-office statutes on 
the ground that the bill as drawn would not accomplish its pur- 
pose.^ April 30, 1886, President Cleveland vetoed a bill which 
attempted to extend to the city of Omaha privileges which it 
already possessed under a prior act.^ July 30, 1886, President 
Cleveland vetoed a bill providing for a bridge across an arm of 
Lake Champlain, on the ground that a bill for the purpose had 

^ Appendix A, No. 75. 

2 For the text of the act, see Senate Journal, 41 Cong., 2 sess., 1080. 

* Appendix B, No. 9. 

* Ante, §§ 68, 81. 

5 Appendix A, No. 52. ^ Ibid., No. 105. 

7 Ibid., No. 136. 



no Veto Power: — Exercise of Powers. Ch. ir. 

already been approved. ^ August 14, 1888, President Cleveland 
vetoed a joint resolution authorizing the printing of additional 
United States maps of the edition of 1886,^ on the ground that 
the map for 1887, which was a better and cheaper map than the 
one for 1886, was all ready for publication. 

All the vetoes affecting the powers of government have now 
been considered. It is difficult to summarize their combined effect, 
because of the variety of subjects considered. In regard to the 
exercise of governmental authority over individuals, the President's 
power has usually been employed for the protection of individual 
rights. In territorial affairs the veto for a long time checked the 
policy of rapid disposition of the public lands, and attempted to 
check the unwise admission of unripe States. In finance the veto 
has been used, — with the exception, perhaps, of Jackson's and 
Tyler's bank vetoes, and the French spoliation vetoes, — to protect 
the funds of the government, to secure a sound currency, and to 
prevent extravagant expenditures. Almost the only application 
of the veto to commercial powers has been in internal improvement 
legislation ; and here, though finally overcome by the continued 
policy of Congress, the Presidents long set themselves against this 
somewhat doubtful use of the powers of government. One cour- 
ageous stand has been taken against the extension of the general 
welfare principle. The war powers had their great development, 
during the Civil War, with no executive interference. 

In so far as these diverse effects can be summed up in a word, 
it may be said that the veto has been used to prevent Congress 
from unduly extending its authority ; that in almost all cases it has 
been used wisely ; and that it has failed only in those cases in 
which Congress has been supported by a strong public opinion, or 
in which the majority of the people took no interest. 

1 Appendix A, No. 236. ^ Ibid., No. 392. 



CHAPTER V. 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE AS TO VETOES. 

§ 99. The action of the President. 

§ 100. Is the exercise of the veto a legislative power? 

§ 101. Constitutionality of pocket vetoes. The legal ten days. 

§ 102. May a bill be vetoed without stating reasons? 

§ 103. May a bill be signed after the adjournment of Congress? 

§ 104. May a President refuse to carry out an act? 

§ 105. The President's right of protest. 

§ 106. Is the signature of the President essential to constitutional 
amendments ? 
§ 107. The action of Congress. 

§ 108. Has the Executive a right to recall a veto? 

§ 109. What is a two-thirds majority? 

§ no. Has the Speaker a right to vote on reconsideration? 

§ III. Second reconsideration of a veto. 

§ 112. Failure to enter the veto message in the journal. 

§ 113. Frequent neglect of reconsideration. 
§ 114. Comparative unimportance of constitutional details. 

§ 99. The action of the President. — The veto power has been 
in operation in the government of the United States for more 
than a hundred years ; and in that time many interesting questions 
of procedure as to the acceptance and disallowance of bills have 
arisen and have been settled. In the present chapter the more 
important of these questions will be discussed. For convenience 
those questions which have arisen in regard to procedure between 
the time when the President receives the bill and the time when 
he returns it to Congress with his objections have been grouped 
together;^ while those questions which relate to procedure after 
Congress has received the message, are placed in a separate group. 

After the passage of bills they are enrolled, formally engrossed 
and compared, signed by the speaker of the House and the Presi- 
dent of the Senate, and finally presented to the President of the 
United States by the committee on enrolled bills of that branch 
of Congress in which the bill originated.^ 

1 P'or the practice in the States, see Appendix E, Nos. I-IO. 

2 McDonald, Manual of the Senate (1886), 262. 



112 Veto Power : — Procedure. [Ch. v. 

§ 100. Is the exercise of the veto a legislative po-wrer ? — The 

first question which naturally suggests itself is as to the nature 
of the veto power. Dr. Von Hoist ^ maintains that the veto is in 
no sense a part of the legislative power, since " all " legislative 
power is vested in Congress. Mr. Bryce in his recent work seems 
hardly consistent on this point. In one place he speaks of the 
President as not at all a part of the legislature ; ^ while in another 
place he speaks of the President's veto power as a legislative 
function.^ Mr. Bryce expressly says that by granting the Presi- 
dent the veto the Federal Convention made him " a distinct 
branch of the legislature, but for negative purposes only. Thus 
the executive was strengthened, not as an executive, but by being 
made a part of the legislature." * 

The latter view is in itself the more reasonable, and better har- 
monizes with the known deviations in the Constitution from the 
strict principle of separation of powers. Thus the Senate, in im- 
peachments, is a judicial and not a legislative body. In like man- 
ner the President acts as a part of the law-making power when he 
approves or disapproves an act. This conclusion is strengthened 
by an examination of the growth of the veto. It has been pointed 
out in an earlier portion of this work ^ that the veto in the Federal 
Constitution was derived from the State Constitutions, — a view 
which is supported by the Federalist itself.^ The power in the 
States was derived in a somewhat modified form from the Colonial 
systems and from the institutions of the mother country ; while 
in England the power was a remnant of the once important legis- 
lative power of the kings.'^ 

Thus it appears as a matter of historical development as well 
as of theory that the veto is a legislative power. It therefore seems 
a reasonable explanation of the declaration that "all legislative 
power is vested in Congress," to say that the general statement 
is limited by the particular power given to the President in a later 
part of the same instrument. 

1 Constitutional Law of the United States, II2. 

- The American Commonwealth (Am. edition), I, 52. 

2 Ibid., I, 220. 

^ Cooley also calls the veto a legislative power. Principles of Constitutional Law, 50. 

5 Ante, §§ 8, 10. 

« The Federalist (Dawson's ed.), No. LXVIII. 

^ Ante, § 5. 



§§ loo, loi.] Legislative Power. Pocket Veto. 113 

§ lOI. Constitutionality of pocket vetoes. The legal ten days. 

— The Constitution provides that no bill shall become a law which 
is presented to the President within ten days of the end of a ses- 
sion of Congress, unless it be signed and returned to Congress 
before adjournment. The provision is plain, and it is surprising 
that the constitutionality of these "pocket vetoes" has ever been 
questioned. In 1833, however, Henry Clay assailed President 
Jackson's pocket veto of the bill for the distribution of the pro- 
ceeds of the public land, on the ground that it was unconstitu- 
tional.^ Clay maintained that the constitutional provision only 
applied to bills presented to the President within ten days of the 
adjournment of the first or of an extra session of Congress. In 
other words. Clay held that the President might withhold his sig- 
nature where the day of the adjournment was fixed by simple joint 
resolution, but not otherwise. This reasoning is wholly unsound. 
It is unsupported by the Constitution, and too comprehensive as 
a matter of principle ; for if the rule which Clay contended for 
should be adopted it would destroy the veto power ; Congress 
could prevent the President from vetoing a bill by presenting it 
to him so late in the final session that he could not veto it and 
still send his message to Congress before adjournment. In fact, 
the bill concerning which Clay complained passed the House but 
two days before the expiration of that session. No case, therefore, 
could better illustrate the weakness of Clay's argument, or bring 
out more clearly the great usefulness of the pocket veto. How 
freely the pocket veto has been employed may be seen from an 
examination of the statistics. Many Presidents have left bills to 
perish for lack of their signature, including Presidents who had 
vetoed no bills directly.^ 

Another very interesting question relative to pocket vetoes is 
that of the length of time during which an act may be held by the 
President unsigned before it becomes law. In the appendix will 
be found numerous cases in which a veto message was returned 
from eleven to twenty-four days after the last action of either 
House. The Constitution distinctly provides, "if any bill shall 
not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays ex- 
cepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall 
become a law in like manner as if he had signed it." The explana- 

1 Appendix A, No. 17; Debates of Congress, Vol. X, Part I, 14-18. 

2 Cf. Appendix D. For State practice, see Appendix E, Nos. 22-26. 



114 ^^^ Pozver: — Procedtire. [Ch. v. 

tion of the discrepancy is simple. In the first place, Sundays are 
not considered a legal part of the ten days, so that the twelfth day 
after submission to the President may legally be the tenth. In 
the second place, the day of reception is not included. ^ In the 
third place, the bill is frequently not presented to the President 
until some days after passing through the final stages of legisla- 
tion. It may therefore be set down as certain that all bills which 
pass the second House in which they are considered as late as Feb- 
ruary 20 in the odd years will fail without a veto, unless signed by 
the President ; and bills passed between the i8th and 20th may fail. 
§ 102. May a bill be vetoed -without stating reasons ? — All of 
the presidential vetoes have been accompanied by the reasons for 
the refusal to sign. Indeed it is difficult to see how any other plan 
could be followed, since the Constitution requires that if the Presi- 
dent fails to approve a bill he shall return it, with his objections, 
to that House in which it shall have originated.^ Furthermore, it 
is maintained in a pamphlet by Mr. J. H. Benton, Jr.,^ that the 
objections assigned must be objections to the intrinsic merits of 
the bill. He quotes at length from the proceedings of the Federal 
Convention, from the Federalist, and from the writings of Madison 
and Hamilton, to show that the President's authority was similar 
to that of the Council of Revision in the State of New York, and 
that this Council had power to state objections only to the intrinsic 
merits of the bills brought before it. This restriction would 
narrow the plain wording of the Constitution by an appeal to the 
practice of a body unknown to the Constitution, and equally un- 
known to English parliamentary practice. The Constitution sets 
no limit upon the nature of the objections stated by the President, 
nor is it generally assumed that there are any limits.* If there 
be none, the President has a constitutional right to veto a bill 
simply because undue influence had been used in securing its 
passage, or for any other reason that seems good to him, even 
though his objections may have no reference to the contents of 
the measure. 



1 Story, Commentaries. (Cooley's ed.) §891, notes. For States, see Appendix E, 
Nos. 27-36. 

2 Ante, § II. In Georgia no veto message is required. Appendix E, No. 5. 
^ Benton, The Veto Power in the United States, 35. 

* Von Hoist, Constitutional Law, II 3, note; Cooley, Principles of Constitutional 
Law, 50. 



§§101-103.] Reasons. Signatiwc after Adjournment. 115 

§ 103. May a bill be signed after the adjournment of Congress ? 
— There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the President 
from signing a bill after the adjournment of Congress. The only 
provision is in regard to bills which the President leaves unsigned; 
these cannot become law if Congress, by its adjournment, cuts 
short the ten days allowed the executive for the consideration of 
bills. Nor is there any consideration of parliamentary law which 
demands that Congress should be in session when a bill is signed. 
Congressional jurisdiction over a bill ceases when it is sent to the 
President for his signature, and there is no legal method of recover- 
ing possession of the subject other than by a subsequent act of repeal 
passed under the usual forms. The act is not even returned to Con- 
gress, but is deposited by the President in the State Department. ^ 

The interests of good government seem to demand that the 
President should have the power to distribute over the succeeding 
ten days the immense responsibility of signing the bills with which 
he is inundated during the last hours of Congress. At present he 
must either sign or "pocket veto" a multitude of bills with scarce 
a glance at them ; and to refuse his signature when detailed ex- 
amination is impossible means to cut off essential appropriations, 
or to defeat measures of great public importance. Should the 
President be given the additional time, his functions would be 
performed more carefully, and Congress would perhaps hesitate to 
pour upon him such a mass of crude legislation. 

In one important instance the right of a President to sign a bill 
after the adjournment of Congress has been distinctly recognized. 
March 3, 1863, Congress passed an act providing for the collection 
of abandoned property, and the prevention of frauds in insurrec- 
tionary districts of the United States.^ March 12, 1863, President 
Lincoln signed the bill. In 1883, in a case in the Court of Claims,^ 
the validity of the act was questioned, but the Court said that 
the Supreme Court had passed on cases under this act as if it had 
been valid law, and that Congress had recognized the validity of 
the act by amending it July 4, 1864, and speaking of it as the act 
of March 12, 1863. The particular case under consideration was, 
however, decided on another point, without a judicial determina- 
tion of the validity of the act. 

^ Revised Statutes, § 204. 

2 Congressional Globe, Part II, 37 Cong., 3 sess., 1543. 

3 18 Court of Claims, 700. 



Il6 Veto Power: — Procedttre. [Ch. v. 

In at least three of the States of the Union, New York, Georgia, 
and Illinois, amendments to the State Constitution have been 
passed authorizing the governor to sign bills after the adjourn- 
ment of the legislature ; but in all three States it had previously 
been held by the courts that, under constitutional provisions cop- 
ied word for word from the Constitution of the United States, the 
power of the governor to sign bills within ten days of the time 
they are presented to him does not cease with the adjournment of 
the legislature.^ The Illinois case is, perhaps, the most important, 
because it was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
Chief Justice Waite in delivering the opinion said : " The question 
to consider is whether a bill passed by both Houses of the Legis- 
lature, and presented to the governor before the Legislature ad- 
journs, becomes a law when signed by the governor after the 
session of the Legislature has terminated by adjournment, but 
signed within ten days of the time it is presented to him. We see 
nothing in the Constitution of Illinois, express or implied, to for- 
bid it, and in our judgment from every view of the case we think 
he can. "2 

After these decisions it seems hardly probable that the Supreme 
Court would hesitate to declare valid an act approved by the Pres- 
ident of the United States under similar circumstances. 

§ 104. May a President refuse to carry out an act? — August 
14, 1876, President Grant, in signing a river and harbor bill, pro- 
tested against certain provisions in the measure, and declared it to 
be his intention not to carry out these provisions.^ This was a 
novel and a clearly unconstitutional way of defeating the will of 
Congress.* The President's purpose could be justified only in regard 
to such acts as merely authorize the President or his secretaries to 
take certain action. But even in those cases where the President 
is commanded to carry out the legislative will there seems to be no 
way in which he can be compelled to obey the command. He is 
one of the co-ordinate branches of the government, and it is a well- 
established principle that the President in his official capacity is 

I21N. Y. 317; 30 Barb. 304; 41 Ga. 157. For the provisions of State Constitutions, 
see Appendix E, Nos. 37-43. 

■^ 103 U. S. 423. 3 Appendix B, No. 7. 

* No President has so strenuously stood out against the pohcy of Congress as Andrew- 
Johnson. But even President Johnson declared himself constitutionally bound to carry 
out the details of the Reconstruction Acts passed over his veto. 



§§ 103-106.] Refusal to Carry Out. Protest. wj 

not amenable to the Supreme Court, nor can he be reached by 
Congress except through the cumbrous and well-nigh impracti- 
cable machinery of impeachment. Practically then, the President 
is independent in his particular sphere as chief executive officer of 
the nation ; and if he refuse to carry out the provisions -of a law 
which is entrusted to him for enforcement, there is no method of 
compelling him to act. Such refusal is, however, only suspensive 
and not absolute, since the effect ceases with the close of the 
President's term of office. 

§ 105. The President's right of protest. — In Appendix B will be 
found a list of Presidential protests against various acts and reso- 
lutions of Congress. They cover a long period of time and a great 
variety of subjects. The first one — President Jackson's protest 
against the Senate resolution of censure — is the longest, and per- 
haps the most important. ^ 

The Senate maintained that for the President to send to the 
Senate a protest against any of its acts,^ was an infringement of 
its rights. The objection seems well taken. To be sure, the 
Constitution is silent on the point, but each of the two Houses of 
Congress may pass resolutions which do not require the signature 
of the President, and are entirely free from his veto. In such 
cases a Presidential protest is both undignified and unjustifiable. 
In this particular instance, the Senate had put itself in the wrong 
by an equally unwarranted criticism of the President's action. 

A somewhat different and a larger question is whether the 
President may constitutionally protest against joint resolutions 
and bills of Congress, without a formal veto. The Constitution 
does not in terms give or withhold such a right, but it does sub- 
ject joint resolutions and bills alike to the veto. The veto power, 
by reasonable implication, includes the lesser power of objecting 
while signing. It may, therefore, be laid down as a principle, that 
a protest is constitutional wherever a veto would be constitutional. 

§ 106. Is the signature of the President essential to constitu- 
tional amendments ? — When the Thirteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution was presented to the President after its passage by 
Congress, he signed it and notified Congress to that effect.^ The 
Senate immediately adopted a resolution declaring that the Presi- 

1 Appendix B, No. i . 

2 Debates of Congress, XII, 363. 

^ Congressional Globe, Tj% Cong., 2 sess., 588. 



1 1 8 Veto Pozver : — Procedure. [Ch. v. 

dent's signature to the amendment was unnecessary. In this the 
Senate was undoubtedly correct. In the first place, the President's 
power to approve a bill seems bestowed rather as incident of his 
power to veto ; when it would be impossible for him successfully to 
veto a measure, the necessity for his signature no longer exists. A 
resolution to amend the Constitution must already have received a 
two-thirds vote of each branch of the Legislature. Such a resolu- 
tion is therefore beyond the reach of the veto and consequently 
beyond the necessity for Presidential approval. 

About thirteen hundred amendments to the Constitution have 
been introduced into Congress since 1789.^ Of these but nineteen 
have received the approval of both Houses of Congress. The prac- 
tice of the government has been almost uniformly that suggested 
by the Senate. President Buchanan did indeed sign the Corwin 
Amendment in 1861;^ this, however, is the only case out of the 
number, except that already mentioned, in which a presidential 
signature has been affixed. 

§ 107. The action of Congress. — Should a bill be approved, 
or should Congress have adjourned before the expiration of the ten 
days, no further action of Congress upon that bill is possible. In 
case of an ordinary veto, however, the revisionary power of Con- 
gress at once comes into effect, and it is the questions arising out 
of this second consideration of vetoed bills to which the remainder 
of this chapter will be devoted.^ 

Vetoes are transmitted to that House of Congress in which 
originated the bill which has failed of executive approval ; and 
are carried to that House by the President's private secretary. 

§ 108. Has the Executive a right to recall a veto? — August 1 5, 
1876, President Grant vetoed a bill providing for the sale of certain 
Indian lands.* The veto was sent to the Senate, but before that 
body had acted upon it, a message was received from the President 
saying that his veto of the bill was premature, and requesting that 
the bill be returned to him in order that he might sign it. An 
interesting discussion immediately arose as to the power of the 
President to recall a veto message which had been received by 

1 Stated by Mr. H. V. Ames from his researches in the Journals of Congress. 

2 Nicolay and Hay in the Century, New Series, xiii, 73. 

^ For action of State legislatures, see Appendix E, Nos. 11-17. 
* Appendix A, No. 108. 



§§ 106-109.] Recall. Reconsideration. 119 

Congress.^ It was generally held that the President had no such 
power, and that the only effect, and in fact the intended effect, of 
the President's second message was to destroy the persuasive force 
of the first message. The bill was accordingly passed over the 
veto in both Houses by large majorities. 

The question seems to have been decided correctly ; for surely 
the President could have no more right to recall a veto message 
which had been delivered to Congress, than a branch of that body 
would have to reconsider a vote on the passage of a bill after pres- 
entation to the President. Moreover, if a President could recall a 
veto, he would inevitably be subjected to a very heavy pressure, 
from which he is now relieved by the fact that vetoes are often 
sent in before persons interested in the bill have time to remon- 
strate. 

The President was evidently satisfied with the result of his mes- 
sage, for on January 12, 1877, he requested that a bill vetoed on 
August 15, 1876, be returned in order that he might sign it.^ It 
is not possible to suppose in this case that the message was any- 
thing more than a request to Congress to pass the bill over the 
veto.. For reasons not evident upon the face of the matter, the bill 
was not passed over the veto, or even reconsidered. 

The action on the part of Congress in the second case was 
commendable, since the dangers just referred to as attendant upon 
a power in the executive to recall veto messages would not be obvi- 
ated under a procedure whereby the President could practically 
nullify his veto by a message to Congress. 

§ 109. What is a two-thirds majority? — The veto message 
once before the House, the next question is, what constitutes the 
constitutional two-thirds majority necessary to enact a bill over 
the veto .? Upon this question the proceedings of the Federal 
Convention throw a great deal of light. In all the early stages 
of the discussion, it was provided that a bill must receive a vote 
of " two-thirds of each branch of the 7iational legislature." ^ This 
phrase could only mean two-thirds of all the members in each 
branch of Congress. When the resolution was taken up by the 

1 Congressional Record, 44 Cong., i sess., 5664. The Confederate Congress occa- 
sionally recalled a bill after sending it to President Davis; some confusion was caused, 
but there was no objection. 

2 Appendix A, No. 109, 

2 Elliot, Debates V, 349, 376 ; ante, § 10. 



I20 Veto Power: — Procedure. [Ch. v. 

Committee of Detail the wording was changed, so that a bill to 
become a law in spite of the veto must be passed by two-thirds of 
each House.^ This change in the wording is significant, for in the 
Constitution the word house is in such connection used as synony- 
mous with quorum. 2 

Nevertheless, the question continued occasionally to be debated 
until 1856. On May 19 of that year President Pierce vetoed an 
internal improvement bill.^ When the veto came up for recon- 
sideration in the Senate, the thirty-one votes cast in favor of pass- 
ing the bill, over the President's objections, made two-thirds of the 
members present, but not two-thirds of the total number of Sena- 
tors. The President of the Senate, however, declared the bill 
passed. An appeal from the decision was not sustained by the 
Senate.* This decision has ever since been accepted as a prece- 
dent.^ 

§ 1 10. Has the Speaker a right to vote on reconsideration? — 
March 3, 1817, the House of Representatives considered President 
Madison's veto of the "bonus bill."^ When the vote was taken, 
the Speaker, Henry Clay, claimed and exercised the right to vote 
on the ground that the occasion " differed from every other ques- 
tion before the House." ^ At the present time it is the custom 
for the Speaker to vote in all cases where the Constitution requires 
a two-thirds vote. The rules of the House are, however, silent 
on the point, merely providing that the Speaker must vote whenever 
his vote would be decisive, or when the vote is to be by ballot.^ 
There appears to be nothing in the position of the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives which deprives him of a vote upon 
such questions ; and it is doubtful whether any rule of the House 
could withdraw the right. 

§ 1 1 1. Second reconsideration of a veto. — The question whether 
a house after taking a vote upon a vetoed bill and failing to pass it 
over a veto, may a second time bring it to a vote, is not one touched 
upon directly by the Constitution ; it is a question of which the 
solution has been left wholly to the discretion of Congress. 

1 Elliot, Debates, V, 378, 431, 536. 

2 Ibid., V, 406, 407; of. Constitution, Art. i, Sec. 5. 

^ Appendix A, No. 38. * Senate Journal, 34 Cong., i and 2 sess., 419. 

5 Rules of House of Representatives, 49 Cong., 2 sess., 473. 
® Appendix A, No. 8. " Annals of Congress, 14 Cong., 2 sess., 1062. 

* Rules of the House of Representatives, 49 Cong,, 2 sess., 236. 



§§ I09-III.] Speaker's Vote. Second Reconsideration. 121 

At the close of President Pierce's administration five bills were 
passed over the veto ; and in the case of each of the last two the 
first vote in the Senate on reconsideration was not sufficient to 
pass the bill ; afterwards the vote was reconsidered and the neces- 
sary two-thirds majority obtained.^ In the second case, the Senate 
had not only failed to pass the bill, but had by message informed 
the House of that fact ; and before they reconsidered the vote they 
requested the return of the message. The House complied, and 
the vote was duly reconsidered. The action of the Senate met 
with much objection. Senator Bayard held that by "reconsidera- 
tion " in the case of a veto the Constitution meant a single vote, 
and that since the Senate had voted upon the bill and failed to 
pass it, it was dead, and could not again be considered.^ Senator 
Stewart on the other hand claimed that by "reconsider" the 
Constitution meant that Congress could open the whole question 
and treat it just as in the original discussion, except that a two- 
thirds vote was necessary to carry it.^ Similar ground was taken 
by Senator Seward, who maintained that until a bill had gone 
beyond the control of the Senate it could be reconsidered indefi- 
nitely.* This was the view also of the President of the Senate, 
who ruled that the case came under the general practice of the 
Senate, by which every question that has been decided may be 
reconsidered. An appeal was taken, but the ruling was sustained 
by the decisive vote of 32 to 9.^ 

The House of Representatives settled the question at a much 
earlier date and in exactly the opposite way. When Tyler's veto 
of June II, 1844, came up in the House, the bill was reconsidered 
and lost.^ Later on in the same session, an attempt was made to 
reconsider this vote, but the Speaker ruled that this could not be 
done, and the ruling was sustained by the House by a vote of 97 
to 85J 

In both these cases the objection made was parliamentary rather 
than constitutional : it evidently rests within the discretion of each 
House either to permit or to forbid the second reconsideration for 
itself ; but neither House can impose its principle upon the other. 

^ Appendix A, Nos. 41, 42. 

2 Congressional Globe, 34 Cong., i sess., 2205. 

8 Ibid. * Ibid., 2206. ■ 

* Congressional Globe, 34 Cong., i sess., 2206. 

^ Appendix A, No. 29. 

' Congressional Globe, 28 Cong., i sess., 675. 



122 Veto Power: — Procedure. [Ch. v. 

§ 112. Failure to enter the veto message in the journal. — The 
Constitution strictly provides that the veto message shall be en- 
tered at large upon the Journal of the House in which it origi- 
nated. In one instance this duty apparently has been omitted.^ 
President Hayes' veto of June 15, 1880,^ does not appear in the 
Senate Journals. The receipt of the message is recorded for the 
last day of the session, but a careful search has failed to discover 
the message itself. The failure in this case seems due to the neg- 
ligence of one of the Houses. The omission of the constitutional 
requirement, however, cannot vitiate the veto. The action of the 
President was complete, and was acknowledged by the Senate. 

On the other hand, although the provision for the entry of the 
President's objections is plainly intended to preserve a permanent 
record, yet, in this, as in other directory parts of the Constitu- 
tion, there is no process by which Congress can be compelled to 
perform its duty. 

§ 113. Frequent neglect of reconsideration. — The same princi- 
ple applies to the last constitutional point which remains to be 
noted. During the early history of the government. Congress 
was very particular to comply with the constitutional provision 
requiring that a bill should be reconsidered after its veto. Indeed 
it was not until President Lincoln's administration that the first 
failure occurred.^ From that time on, however, the constitutional 
duty of Congress in this particular has been less and less observed, 
and in President Cleveland's administration, as well as in Presi- 
dent Grant's, it was the exception, and not the rule, to reconsider 
a vetoed bill. The complete change in procedure in these two 
administrations may be accounted for in part by the great number 
of vetoes by these two Presidents. 

A wider reason, perhaps including that just stated, is the great 
pressure of business upon Congress. It is difficult to secure time 
for the reconsideration of a bill unless it can probably command a 
two-thirds majority in both Houses. Even where the success of 
a bill is certain, it is often impossible to secure the attention of 
Congress. 

1 President Jackson, in 1837, signed a veto message dated "March 3, 11.45 P-M." 
Congress was to expire in a few minutes and instead of sending the message to the Sen- 
ate for entry in the Journals, he deposited it in the Department of State. Appendix A, 
No. 21. For State practice, see Appendix E, Nos. 18-21. 

2 Appendix A, No. 127. 3 Ibid., No. 50. 



§§ 1 1 2-1 14.] Entry. Neglect to Consider. Discussion. 123 

§ 114- Comparative unimportance of constitutional details. — 
From the discussion in this chapter it is apparent that, although 
the veto power has been many times employed to uphold constitu- 
tional principles, few and unimportant questions have arisen as to 
its nature and the method of its operation. For this apparent par- 
adox two reasons may be assigned. In the first place, the power 
is very accurately and carefully defined by the Constitution, thus 
leaving little room for controversy. A more important reason, 
however, is that the veto is not a substantive power, but, in the 
legal sense, an adjective power, a modifying influence, which 
changes with every change in administration. 

The effect of the veto depends upon the substantive power to 
which it may for the time be linked, and of which the exercise may 
be forwarded or prevented by the exercise of this form of presiden- 
tial discretion. Attacks upon the veto have therefore occurred 
rather as attacks upon the substantive powers accompanying it. 
It is only these latter powers, as for example the power to make 
internal improvements, which present tangible and continuing 
principles which can be attacked or defended for themselves. For 
these reasons, the veto power has never aroused that determined 
hostility to its existence or mode of operation which has generally 
preceded and caused modifications of the other powers of govern- 
ment. 

For the very reason that the veto power is used as a means to an 
end, the temporary contentions over the manner of its use have 
been more frequent and more violent ; and, in the next chapter, 
we shall pass to the discussion of the veto as a political engine. 



CHAPTER VI. 
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETO POWER. 

§ 115. Reasons for chronological treatment. 

§ 116. Statistics of vetoes. 

§ 1 1 7. Personal element in the veto. 

§ 118. Presidents who vetoed no bills. 

§119. Presidents who vetoed few bills. 

§ 120. Presidents who vetoed many bills. 
§ 121. Reasons expressed for vetoes. 

§ 122. The constitution and expediency. 

§ 123. Cause of the increasing use of expediency as a reason for vetoes. 
§ 1 24. Effect of the veto on parties. 
§ 125. Effect of the veto on legislation. 

§ 126. Prevention of unwise measures. 

§ 127. Prevention of unwise lines of policy. 

§ 128. Indirect influence of the veto on legislation. 

§ 129. Vetoes which have failed of their object. 
§ 130. Popular objections to the veto. 
§ 131. Proposed constitutional amendments. 

§ 132. Attempts to destroy the power. 

§ 133. Attempts to diminish the power. 

§ 134. Attempts to enlarge the power. 
§ 135. The veto power in 1789 and in 1889. 

§ 115. Reasons for chronological treatment. — The history of the 
veto power could be obviously incomplete without some general 
view of its political growth and tendencies. The main body of 
the work has been devoted to the study in its details of the effect 
of the veto on the form, distribution, and exercise of the various 
powers of the government. In thus grouping the vetoes about 
great lines of legislation, there is danger of losing sight of the 
veto as a political power. 

§ 116. Statistics of vetoes. — A glance at Appendix A will 
suggest several generalizations as to the number of vetoes and 
their classification according to their general character and recap- 
ture by Congress. 

Of the four hundred and thirty-three vetoes enumerated, it is 
important to observe that only twenty-nine bear the double star, 

[124] 



§§ 115, 1 1 6. Statistics of Vetoes. 125 

indicating that the bills eventually passed over the veto.^ Favor- 
able as this showing is to the power of the veto, it is an under- 
estimate ; fifteen of the bills, or more than half, were passed over 
the veto in the administration of President Johnson, when the 
relations between the executive and Congress were so abnormal 
that no important inference can be drawn from them as to the 
effectiveness of the veto. It is often stated that Johnson was 
the first President whose veto was overridden. The statement is 
incorrect ; one bill was passed over the veto in President Tyler's 
administration and five in President Pierce's.^ 

In eleven cases bills were passed over the veto in one of the 
Houses of Congress, but were either not reconsidered or failed 
upon reconsideration in the other House.^ Seven of these 
instances occurred in the administration of President Cleveland. 
And in each of the seven cases the House which passed the bill 
over the veto was the Senate. This fact is partly accounted for 
by the fact that the President was not a member of the party hav- 
ing a majority in the Senate. But as the bills thus passed were, 
with two exceptions, for the erection of public buildings, party 
considerations had probably little weight.* 

Although so few bills have been passed over the veto even by 
a single House, it was the universal custom down to President 
Lincoln's administration to take a formal vote on the question of 
reconsideration ; a proceeding which, at the beginning of the 
government, was little more than a form. Three hundred and 
eighty-four bills have failed of executive approval since 1861, 
and of these bills only sixty-three were reconsidered. This would 
indicate that reconsideration is no longer insisted upon for form's 
sake, and is only resorted to when it is expected that the bill can 
be passed over the veto by at least one of the two Houses.^ 

It remains to consider the number of "pocket vetoes"; the 
failures to sign bills for which a President has sent an official 
statement of reasons at a later session of Congress. There have 
been sixteen of them. The practice began in President Madison's 

1 Appendix A, Nos. 30, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 54, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 
69. 7o> 71. 73. 83, 98, 103, loS, 117, 131, 221, 234. 

2 By the Confederate Congress the veto of President Davis was once overridden. 
Appendix C, No. 34; cf. Nos. 9, 11. 

3 Appendix A, Nos. 74, 78, iii, 132, 134, 156, 157, 273, 277, 407, 429. 

* Several of the Confederate vetoes met with like treatment. Appendix C, Nos. 23, 
33. 35. 38- ^ A7ite, § 113. 



1 26 Veto Power : — Political Development. [Ch. vi, 

administration, and continued down to 1865. Since President 
Lincoln's administration no " pocket vetoes" have occurred. This 
does not mean that all the bills presented have been signed within 
ten days of the close of the sessions of Congress. On the con- 
trary, it is true that more bills than ever fail in this way. What 
the apparent disuse of the pocket veto indicates is that a failure 
to sign has ceased to be a matter of sufficient importance to 
attract the attention of Congress.^ 

§ 117. Personal element in the veto. — The question of the 
distribution of vetoes among the various Presidents is quite as 
important as their total number, and it is noticeable that many 
circumstances apart from the intrinsic merits of the legislation 
presented to them have influenced the Presidents in their deter- 
mination either to use or not to use the veto. There are personal 
elements, depending upon the individual characteristics of the 
various Presidents and their relations with the different Congresses, 
which have had as much to do with the exercise of the veto power 
as has the character of the proposed legislation. 

§ 118. Presidents who vetoed no bills. — Seven Presidents have 
omitted to exercise the veto power.^ In the cases of the first 
four the failure was due in part no doubt to the fact that, during 
their terms of office, they had to do with Congresses which were 
almost continuously in political agreement with them. In the case 
of Jefferson the character of the man was an additional cause for 
the disuse of the veto ; not only was he solidly supported by Con- 
gress, but he also implicitly believed that "the people" were 
always right, and on this account did not use the " royal preroga- 
tive." Even the bitter personal humiliation of the repeal of the 
embargo was endured without a suggestion of a veto. Van Buren's 
peculiar caution must also have had much to do with his acceptance 
of legislation. An astute politician, heir to a well-defined policy, 

1 The attempt has been made to prepare a table which would show the precise 
numbers of bills which failed under the ten-day rule for want of the President's signa- 
ture. The journals are so confused that it has been impossible to complete it for this 
work. But President Grant suffered a large number of bills to fail in this way ; and 
a large number became acts without his signature. 

In the Southern Confederacy there were no "pocket vetoes"; but President Davis 
twice sent notice to Congress that he had left bills unsigned, and had not time to state 
his reasons. Appendix C, Nos. 5, 17. 

2 John Adams, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, W. H. Harrison, Taylor, 
Garfield. 



<i^ 116-120.] Personal Element. 127 

and well supported by his party, his conciliatory character was 
averse to the use of a weapon so keen as the veto. 

There was nothing in the character of W. H. Harrison, Taylor, 
or Garfield to suggest a like restraint ; but the death of each of 
these Presidents shortly after entering upon the duties of office 
took away the opportunity. It is almost certain that President 
Taylor would have vetoed the compromise of 1850 had he lived. ^ 

§ 119. Presidents who vetoed few bills. — Turning now to 
those Presidents who did veto bills, we distinguish two classes. 
In the first we find those Presidents who vetoed few bills- and 
whose exercise of the power seems incidental rather than the 
result of any fixed policy. In the second we find those who have 
exercised the veto freely and with some definite policy in view. 
Nine Presidents belong in the first group.^ 

The personal element had practically no influence in the vetoes 
of Washington, Madison, and Monroe, but when we come to Tyler 
we find a man who was largely influenced by private motives.^ 
Confidence in his own judgment, resentment at the dictation of the 
Whigs, and the hope of a renomination controlled him in his use 
of the veto. The bitter hostility of Congress did much to irritate 
him. Under these circumstances it is small wonder that the merits 
of the various bills found little place in the real reasons for Tyler's 
vetoes ; and that his exercise of the power was scarcely more than 
an incident in his wrangle with Congress. Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, 
Lincoln, and Arthur, — with the exception of one Congress under 
Buchanan and two under Arthur, — had majorities behind them 
in both Houses. Each vetoed a few bills simply because they 
disapproved of the legislation ; they were apparently unaffected 
by any motives of a personal nature. 

§ 120. Presidents who vetoed many bills. — Five Presidents have 
each vetoed twelve or more bills ; ^ and in each instance either the 
personal characteristics of the President or his peculiar relations 
with Congress are largely responsible for the vigorous use of 
the veto. 

No administration was more thoroughly affected by the personal 
characteristics of its chief executive than that of President Jack- 

^ Von Hoist, Constitutional History, HI, 541. 

2 Washington, Madison, Monroe, Tyler, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Arthur. 

3 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, II, 425, 455, 457. 
* Jackson, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Cleveland. 



128 Veto Power: — Political Development. [Ch. vi. 

son ; and his intense personality and enjoyment of a conflict were 
nowhere more prominent than in the vetoes ; they were imbued 
with prejudices, yet were based upon a certain rugged persistence 
of honest conviction. President Johnson's vetoes were largely 
the result of his contest with Congress over reconstruction, — a 
struggle which his own foolishness and obstinacy did much to 
bring about. 

President Grant was the first occupant of the chair to make a 
systematic and determined use of his share in legislation. Against 
more than a hundred and thirty bills he made the silent protest of 
permitting them to become law without his signature.^ Between 
one and two hundred bills were killed under the ten-day rule by 
withholding his signature, and his vetoes, forty-three in number, 
are more numerous than those of any other President except Cleve- 
land. He was influenced to make this extensive use of his power 
by a strong determination to check the indiscriminate granting of 
relief to persons who claimed to have suffered unjustly in the Civil 
War. Here again we see that a vigorous use of the veto depended 
not so much upon the character of the legislation as upon the 
peculiar sense of duty of the President. 

In President Hayes' exercise of the veto power the personal 
element is almost wholly lacking. He displayed commendable 
determination in vetoing the appropriation bills to which riders 
had been attached ; ^ but it was due rather to a desire to hand down 
the prerogatives of the President unimpaired than to any personal 
feeling. 

President Cleveland has far outstripped all his predecessors in 
his use of the veto. Three hundred and one of the four hundred 
and thirty-three vetoes, or more than two-thirds of all, bear his 
signature. His administration is too recent, and the question is 
perhaps too closely connected with present politics for a perfectly 
impartial view. There are, however, several reasons in the circum- 
stances of the administration which account in part for the sweep- 
ing use of the veto power. In the first place, the mass of legisla- 
tion thrown upon the President for consideration by far exceeded 
anything previously known. Grant, in his two terms, signed 2885 
bills ; Cleveland, in his one term, was called upon to consider nearly 
four thousand bills, of which he signed 3146, and vetoed 301. No 

1 Appendix D. 2 Ante, § 35. 



§§ I20-I22.] Perso7ial Element. Reasons Expressed. 129 

man could accept this mass of legislation unquestioned, and the 
very number of bills suggested the hurry at the Capitol, and pointed 
to crude and undigested legislation. The number of private bills, 
which always receive least attention and are subject to least exami- 
nation by Congress, had increased in greater proportion than legis- 
lation in general. As had been the case in Grant's administration, 
the nature of the bills showered upon the President, quite as much 
as their number, called for numerous vetoes. The precedent 
set by Grant was followed. But the underlying cause was in the 
personal qualities of the President, — his freedom from pledges, his 
rigorous independence of judgment, and determination to prevent 
a wasteful expenditure. The inexpediency of the measures was 
no greater than those of a similar nature which had been approved 
in large numbers by previous Presidents ; but the determination 
of the executive to stop the indiscriminate granting of money was 
stronger, and it was this additional factor which accounts for most 
of President Cleveland's vetoes. 

§ 121. Reasons expressed for vetoes. — In the search for the 
causes of the exercise of the veto power, lying in the minds of the 
successive Presidents, the primary or expressed reasons must not 
be omitted. A long succession of messages has set forth a great 
variety of objections to proposed bills, but they may all be reduced 
to one of two heads, — constitutionality and expediency. The 
alternative of the two classes of reasons marks the development of 
new conceptions of the veto and therefore forms the subject of the 
succeeding paragraphs. 

§ 122. The Constitution and expediency. — President Washington 
based his first veto upon constitutional grounds.^ This precedent 
was followed closely by the earlier Presidents. Down through Jack- 
son's administration twenty-one bills were vetoed, and only five or 
six were based upon other than constitutional grounds. Some of 
them, as, for example, Madison's last veto and Monroe's Cumber- 
land Road veto,2 were not so much vetoes of measures as general 
expositions of the Constitution. From Jackson's administration to 
the Civil War vetoes on grounds of expediency became more fre- 
quent, but they were still in a decided minority. Since the war 
constitutional arguments in a veto message have been almost 
unknown, 

1 Appendix A, No. i. 2 ibid., No. 9. 



130 Veto Power: — Political Development. [Ch. vi. 

The series of vetoes based on expediency began almost as soon 
as did that of vetoes based on constitutional grounds, for Wash- 
ington's second veto was of this character.^ Such objections were, 
however, uncommon down to the Civil War, but they passed un- 
questioned in almost all cases. Since 1865 the great increase in 
the number of these vetoes has caused members of Congress to 
question their validity. President Cleveland's last veto message 
was objected to by Senator Sherman on this ground. ^ The Senator 
declared that the President should only make use of his revisionary 
power when the defence of the Constitution demanded it. This 
question has been sufficiently discussed already. It is a well-set- 
tled principle that a President is the sole judge of the nature of 
the reasons which shall be assigned for a veto. 

§ 123. Cause of the increasing use of expediency as a reason for 
vetoes. — For the change in the character of the objections stated 
by Presidents there must be a reason. It is not that Presidents 
have become wiser or more dictatorial, nor because the proper 
function of the veto has altered. It is due rather to the "adjec- 
tive " character of the veto. The scope of national legislation 
has changed, and the basis of the, veto has of necessity become 
altered to correspond. For the first seventy years of national life 
the most important questions with which Congress had to deal 
were constitutional. There were wide differences of opinion as 
to the proper settlement of great fundamental lines of policy, and 
the veto was frequently brought into use as an additional factor on 
one side or the other. Objections on grounds of expediency were 
often made by Washington, Madison, and almost all of their suc- 
cessors down to the Civil War, but the quantity of legislation was 
smaller, and it was better digested before presentation to the Presi- 
dent ; therefore vetoes on other than constitutional grounds were rare. 

After the war the nature of the questions before Congress 
changed. The result of that struggle was to leave permanently in 
the hands of the general government powers up to that time dis- 
puted. Questions as to the administration of the government then 
became important, and the veto accordingly became a weapon of 
expediency. This change was felt, if not understood, by Senator 
Vest when, in the debate on the veto of the Direct Tax bill,^ he 

1 Appendix A, No. 2. Many of the Confederate vetoes are based on expediency; 
Appendix C. 

2 Congressional Record, 50 Cong., 2 sess., 2612, 2613. ^ Appendix A, No. 433. 



§§ 122-124.] Expediency as a Reaso7i. Parties. 131 

said, " It has come to this point in our country, that the man who 
attempts to question anything under a constitutional grant of 
power is looked upon as an effete and worn-out fossil who lives in 
ancient history, and is unfit for the active life of to-day." ^ It is 
indeed true that the era of great constitutional debates has passed. 
No Hayne attacks or Webster defends the great principles of the 
Constitution, and the character of the arguments in veto messages 
is a reflex of the character of the debates which preceded them. 

§ 124. Effect of the veto on parties. — Whatever the ground 
upon which vetoes have from time to time been based, they have 
had singularly little influence upon the history or development of 
parties. In a government in which legislative power is so developed, 
it is impossible to make the use of the veto a party principle. 
Where the minority in either House agrees with the President, 
they may urge him to veto measures passed by the majority ; but 
every presidential election breaks up existing combinations. On 
the other hand, the use of the veto by a President has seldom 
strengthened his authority as a party leader, and has frequently 
weakened his influence on his party. Madison's and Monroe's 
elaborate vetoes were both swept aside by their own parties. 
Jackson's vetoes were a very important element in the building up 
of the Democratic party, because they forced politicians to side 
with him or against him ; and they had great effect in fixing the 
later tenets of that party, especially in questions of the bank and 
currency. But Jackson used the veto, as he used appointments, 
as a temporary means to an end : his Democratic successors could 
not make the veto venerated, and Polk was the first President to 
suffer the mortification of seeing a veto overruled by Congress. 

That the veto is in itself not a consolidating agent is seen 
plainly in the case of Tyler. Armed with that weapon he was able 
to paralyze the Whig party ; but he could make no headway either 
in winning the Democrats or in creating a personal following. He 
exasperated and injured the Whigs ; but they elected their candi- 
date in 1848. Johnson's experience was much the same, except 
that a two-thirds majority stood ready to overrule him. His 
vetoes, therefore, strengthened his enemies. Grant used the veto 
frequently and wisely, but neither sought nor gained party advan- 
tage from it. It was much the same with Cleveland : it is 

^ Congressional Record, 50 Cong., 2 sess., 2612. 



132 Veto Power: — Political Development. [Ch. vu 

impossible to say whether he strengthened his hold upon his 
party or the popularity of his party in the country, by his fearless 
use of the veto. The veto is a negative power, not popular or 
unpopular in itself; and since a veto always confronts a majority 
in both Houses, the presumption is that its use is an opposition to 
party. 

§ 125. Effect of the veto on legislation. — Turning from this 
question we come to the more practical question of the effects of 
the vetoes. Whatever the reasons in the minds of Presidents, 
the expectations of the framers of the Constitution have been 
realized only if the veto has been so used as to favor good legis- 
lation. 

§ 126. Prevention of unwise measures. — In many instances the 
veto has been used to prevent the passage of isolated measures 
which were not connected with any general line of policy, but which 
were evidently ill-considered or unwise. In this category should be 
placed President Washington's second veto,^ and President Madison's 
naturalization veto,^ and also two of Lincoln's vetoes ; ^ the bills 
checked by the latter were unwise, however, simply in the sense of 
being inefficient. The two bills for enabling a New York mining 
company to get control of land in Montana were for a fraudulent 
purpose, and were wisely vetoed by President Johnson.^ President 
Grant's refusal to sign the inflation bill is a striking instance of 
the usefulness of the veto.^ The bill was in no sense corrupt, but 
it was the result of a craze caused by the panic of 1873, and would 
have done great mischief to the business interests of the country 
if it had been allowed to succeed. President Hayes's veto of the 
Chinese bill ^ is a case in w;hich the veto was used to protect the 
diplomatic interests of the nation from a heedless attack of Con- 
gress. The government cannot be said to have had any policy in 
regard to its treatment of the Indians. Bills have been passed 
having no connection with each other, and whose only object was 
to satisfy the unjust claims of western constituents. In many 
instances, particularly in President Cleveland's administration, 
these unjust bills have been prevented from becoming law by 
the exercise of the veto.'^ 

1 Appendix A, No. 2. * Appendix A, Nos. 56, 58. 

2 Ibid., No. 6. 6 Ibid., No. 92. 
2 Ibid., Nos. 51, 52. 6 Ibid., No. 119. 

^ See ante, § 41; Appendix A, No. 393, 



§§ 124-127.] Effect on Legislation. 133 

Many other illustrations might be given of the use of the veto 
to prevent the enactment of unwise laws. All of Grant's pension 
vetoes, and many of Cleveland's, were based on the technical de- 
fects or unnecessary character of the bills. This was also true of 
the veto of many relief bills, and of Cleveland's veto of the act 
"for the promotion of anatomical science."^ 

To the numerous vetoes mentioned in this paragraph no just 
exception can be taken : few or none of them encountered a two- 
thirds vote in either House, and they go far toward proving the 
indispensable character of the power we are studying. 

§ 127. Prevention of unwise lines of policy. — In several in^ 
stances the veto has been used not merely to prevent the enact- 
ment of a single unwise law, but to stop the execution of an unwise 
policy by Congress. The most striking example was the bank con- 
troversy. The scheme of a United States Bank had been recog- 
nized by the Supreme Court, approved by Madison, had been in 
full operation for twenty years, and was thought well of by the 
people ; yet the vetoes of Jackson and Tyler destroyed the plan 
beyond the hope of reconstruction.^ 

It can hardly be said that it is the policy of Congress to en- 
croach on the executive. There is, however, and always has been, 
a tendency of which Congress is perhaps unconscious, — a politi- 
cal attraction of gravitation, which causes the legislative depart- 
ment to seize power whenever possible. The tendency, if it cannot 
be dignified by the name of policy, has many times been checked 
by the use of the veto.^ A recent instance is President Hayes's 
refusal to sign bills which were framed with the intention of com- 
pelling the President to approve measures which if presented by 
themselves would not have been approved. The struggle was 
severe and protracted, but the President won, thus restoring to 
the executive power what had been usurped by Congress many 
years before.* 

President Cleveland's refusal to approve the Texas Seed bill is 
a more recent illustration. The unfortunate tendency of the bill, 
and the policy of the government in this particular, have already 
been discussed.^ It is enough here to point out that the attempt 
has been checked by the veto. It must, however, be admitted that 
the check is probably merely temporary, and that similar demands 

1 Appendix A, No. 135. 2 Ante, §§ 57-59. ^ Ante, §§ 21-36. 

* Ante, § 35. 6 Aiite, §§ 95, 96. 



1 34 Veto Power : — Political Development. [Ch. vi. 

are likely to be made until, like the sentiment in favor of internal 
improvements, they shall have become too strong to be questioned. 

I 128. Indirect influence of the veto on legislation. — It is not 
easy to specify instances in which the veto has affected legislation 
indirectly, for such an effect must almost necessarily be of a kind 
that would not ordinarily appear in the records. It is, however, 
known that the Compromise of 1850 was delayed by the knowledge 
of the fact that President Taylor would probably veto it if Con- 
gress passed it. Again, President Cleveland's pension vetoes not 
only killed the vetoed bills, but prevented the passage of similar 
bills. At the present moment ^ the fear of the veto is an argument 
against extreme silver legislation. 

There have even been cases in which both Houses have been 
driven by a flurry of popular feeling to agree to measures in the 
hope that the President would, by his veto, prevent the act from 
passing. A veto is like a decision of a court, an announcement to 
all concerned that future cases of the same kind will by that court 
be treated in the same manner. 

§ 129. Vetoes which have failed of their object. — Many times, 
however, the veto has not succeeded either in killing a particular 
bill or in checking legislation. Twenty-nine bills have been 
passed over the veto, and in many cases they were of great impor- 
tance ; the reconstruction bills vetoed by President Johnson, and 
the Bland silver bill which President Hayes refused to sign^ are 
striking examples. In these instances Congress carried out its pur- 
poses by overriding the veto. There are other cases even more 
important in which Congress has in the end maintained its policy 
notwithstanding the vetoes. Very few internal improvement 
vetoes, and no public land vetoes, have been overridden ; but 
the policy of the government in these two respects has been deter- 
mined in opposition to the President's will. The weak point in 
the veto power is that it cannot, or at least does not, stand in the 
way of a strong and continuous public sentiment. A temporary 
agitation, a craze like the greenback movement, may be success- 
fully resisted, but no President can permanently stay legislation 
like the internal improvements. The veto is but an appeal to 
the sober second thought of the nation, and when that second 
thought is like the first the appeal can accomplish nothing. 

1 1890. 2 Appendix A, No. 117. 



§§ 127-130.] Failures. Popular Objections. 135 

This seeming weakness in the veto is not a defect. The theory of 
our government is that in the long run the people are right. The 
veto would be a hindrance if it could permanently check the strong 
underlying tendencies in the public mind. And in any case, in a 
government founded on nearly universal suffrage, a positive check 
to popular measures is not what is wanted. The most that can 
safely be done is to hinder the enactment of propositions until the 
people can determine whether they are really in earnest in their 
demands ; and this delay the veto power is most admirably con- 
structed to accomplish. 

§ 130. Popular objections to the veto. — Popular objections to 
the veto power date back to a very early time in our national his- 
tory. In 1818 a resolution found its way into Congress calling 
for a total abolition of the veto power.^ The ground for the reso- 
lution was the undue power which, it was asserted, the President 
possessed. A second era of objection to the veto dates from about 
1833. From this time until well down to 1850 the President's 
right to refuse his signature to bills was vigorously attacked. It was 
contended that since the veto was almost never overridden it was 
absolute, and therefore contrary to the intention of the founders 
of the Constitution and the genius of our institutions.^ Again, 
it was urged that the veto had been given to the executive to 
strengthen an otherwise weak position, but that the President was 
now fortified by the patronage he controlled, and hence no longer 
needed the veto.^ Again, it was claimed that the veto had been 
granted to the President to be used only in defence of the Consti- 
tution : he had used it for other purposes, and therefore it should 
be taken from him.* On the other hand, there were objections to 
the use of the veto to defend the Constitution, on the ground that 
the Supreme Court had been established to settle constitutional 
points.^ The great objection to the veto at this time, however, was 
that it took a two-thirds majority of each branch of Congress to 
override the President's will. This was said to be an infringement 
of the right of the majority to govern, and wholly anti-republican.^ 

1 Ex. Papers, 15 Cong., i sess., Vol. VIII, No. 200. 

2 House Reports, 27 Cong., 2 sess., Vol. V, No. 1 104. 

3 Democratic Review, XXIV, 19. 

* American Whig Review, X, 121. 
^ Democratic Review, XXIV, 20. 
^ American Whig Review, X, 113. 



136 Veto Power: — Political Development. [Ch. vi. 

The outcry against the "monarchical" character of the veto 
subsided rapidly after Tyler's administration ; and the veto power 
was accepted as it stood until President Hayes's administration. 
The struggle at that time over riders upon appropriation bills gave 
rise to a new agitation, this time for the extension of the veto 
power. The power was declared incomplete because the President 
could not refuse his assent to particular items in the appropriation 
bills presented to him without destroying the bill.^ This was the 
difficulty into which President Hayes was thrown. Complaint has 
also been made within recent years because two-thirds of the mem- 
bers present and voting, instead of two-thirds of the total number 
of members in each branch, can pass a bill over the veto. 

§ 131- Proposed constitutional amendments. — The objections 
to the veto power referred to in the last paragraph are readily 
arranged in three well-defined groups : first, scattering complaints 
against the whole power and a desire to do away with it ; secondly, 
in the forties, a specific outcry because the veto defeated the will 
of the majority; lastly, fault has been found within recent years 
because the veto was not powerful enough. The propositions to 
amend the veto power may be divided into corresponding classes. 

§ 132. Attempts to destroy the power. — Only one positive 
attempt entirely to do away with the veto has been found. In 
18 18 a resolution was introduced into the House by Mr. Lewis, 
proposing that in the future " the President of the United States 
shall not have the power of approving or disapproving any bill or 
bills, or joint resolutions passed by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives." ^ The resolve was read and ordered to lie on the 
table.3 

§ 133. Attempts to diminish the power. — Propositions to amend 
the Constitution so as to diminish the veto power began in Presi- 
dent Jackson's administration. Hostility to Jackson was the first 
principle of the early Whigs, and this hostility was increased, if 
not occasioned, by the President's frequent use of the veto. In 
1833 Senator Kent introduced a resolution providing for an amend- 
ment to the Constitution so that the majority vote of all the mem- 
bers of each House, instead of two-thirds of those present, should 

^ For provisions in State Constitutions on this subject, see Appendix E, Nos. 8, 9. 
The President of the Southern Confederacy had this power, but no case of its exercise 
has been found: Appendix C. 2 jr^. Papers, 15 Cong., i sess., Vol. VIII. 

2 House Journal, 15 Cong., i sess., 478, 479. 



§§130-134-] Efforts to Amend. 137 

pass a bill over the veto.^ This resolution was read a second time 
and laid on the table.^ Eleven other propositions of exactly similar 
nature have since been offered either in the Senate or House,^ but 
in no case was the resolution passed by the House in which it was 
presented. 

The reasons for these resolutions have already been referred to 
in stating the popular objections to the veto. They are compactly 
stated by Mr. Kent in a speech in support of the resolution intro- 
duced in 1835. His arguments for the proposed change were, in 
the first place, the fact that the veto power as then exercised 
tended to unite the legislative and executive branches, a union 
which was contrary to the fundamental principles of our govern- 
ment. In the second place, he argued that the veto had been 
granted to the executive only as a means of defence, and that 
recent Presidents had exceeded their authority. Lastly, Mr. Kent 
maintained that the executive was exceedingly apt to encroach 
upon the other branches of government, and that therefore the 
power of that department should be curtailed.* The occasion for 
these propositions was the activity of Jackson and Tyler, and 
the bitter sense of unexpected defeat at the hands of the execu- 
tive, felt at that time by the Whig party. It is extremely 
fortunate that the attempts did not succeed, for success would 
have meant the practical destruction of the veto, and the com- 
plete control of affairs by the majority in Congress. The rights 
of the minority and of the executive, as well as the interests of the 
nation, would have lost an important safeguard. 

§ 134. Attempts to enlarge the power. — President Hayes, after 
his struggle with Congress over the attaching of riders to appro- 
priation bills, recommended that the executive be given the power 
to approve or veto the separate items of an appropriation bill. This 
recommendation was taken up and acted upon, and from that time 
to the present there has been a constant agitation for an increase of 
the range of the veto. Twenty-four resolutions authorizing amend- 
ments to the Constitution have been offered in Congress, each one 
of which embodied President Hayes's suggestion.^ 

This measure if adopted not only would increase the power of 
the veto, but also would practically destroy the only power which 

1 Senate Journal, 23 Cong., i sess., 65. ^ Ibid., 74. 

3 1835, 1836, 1838, 1841(2), 1842(3), 1849, 1850, 1884. 

* Debates of Congress, Vol. XI, 540. 

5 1876, 1879, 1882(4), 1883(9), 1884, 1885, 1886(4), 1888(3). 



138 Veto Power: — Political Development. [Ch. vi. 

Congress now has over the President, apart from impeachment. 
For, as a recent writer has observed,^ the only coercion which 
Congress can make use of against the President, except by im- 
peachment, is by tacking measures distasteful to the President to 
general appropriation bills, hoping in this way to compel him to 
assent to measures which, if presented on their own merits, would 
surely be vetoed. This power of coercion would be removed by 
the contemplated amendment. 

The amendment would moreover almost certainly check extrav- 
agant legislation. A President would have every incentive to use 
the new power. Even if he cared not to check extravagance as a 
matter of principle, he very often would be called upon to do it 
as a matter of party policy, and the exercise of the power from 
whatever motive would be of advantage to the country. The very 
least that could be said is that the change would not increase the 
expenditure of the government, and in all probability it would 
diminish it. 

Three attempts have been made to extend the power of the 
veto by making a two-thirds majority of all the members of each 
branch of Congress necessary to pass a bill over the veto.^ The 
cause of the resolutions is apparent. August i, 1882, President 
Arthur vetoed a river and harbor bill. August 2 it was passed 
over the veto in each House of Congress by a vote of less than 
two-thirds of the total membership of that House.^ August 4 
the resolution to amend the Constitution was introduced by Mr. 
Hutchins of New York, the same State from which the President 
came. The resolution in 1883 was introduced by the same man, 
and the one in 1884 by another representative from the State of 
New York. The resolutions seem, therefore, very much like 
expressions of executive displeasure at the failure of the veto, just 
as in earlier times the resolutions to diminish the veto power were 
expressions of congressional displeasure at the success of that 
power. 

§ 135. The veto power in 1789 and in 1889. — The true char- 
acter and the development of the veto power may best be under- 
stood by a comparison of the veto as the framers of the Constitution 
evidently intended it, with the veto as exercised a century later. 

1 Bryce, American Commonwealth, I, 207-211. 
. - " 1882, 1883, 1SS4. 

^ Appendix A, No. 131. 



§§ 134, I35-] The Veto in ijSg and in i88g. 139 

When the Constitution was founded, the great fear in men's 
minds was that of executive usurpation. But the experience of the 
Continental Congress, of the Confederation, and of the States 
had also shown to what lengths an unchecked legislature can go. 
Hence, men like Hamilton ^ pointed out the tendency of the legis- 
lative department to encroach on the executive, and the necessity 
of a veto, absolute or qualified. They had also clearly in mind the 
prevention of hasty and imprudent legislation.^ Hamilton early 
expresses this fear in the Federalist : " It establishes a salutary 
check upon the legislative body calculated to guard the community 
against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse 
unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence 
a majority of that body." ^ 

The actual use of the veto power is an interesting commentary 
upon the expectations of those who established it. No idea was 
apparently entertained that the veto would ever be necessary to 
prevent Congress from unconstitutionally enlarging its powers, 
except in the direction of encroachments upon the executive ; yet 
the most important class of constitutional vetoes have been for 
this unanticipated purpose. In the category we find Washington's 
first veto,^ the long series of internal improvement vetoes,* the 
public land vetoes,^ the veto of the Texas Seed bill,^ and others. 

More numerous than the vetoes just referred to, if not more 
important, are those based upon grounds of expediency. This 
series, like the last, began in President Washington's administra- 
tion, and has been increasing in numbers and importance ever 
since. Prominent in the group are the pension and relief vetoes." 

Last of all we come to the vetoes which Hamilton mentioned 
first : those for the protection of the executive.^ These vetoes 
have been of great service, but their practical importance is much 
less than that of either of the preceding classes, and they are 
fewer in number. 

The veto power then has not followed the course marked out 
for it by the Federal Convention, but has worked out for itself 
a path different both in direction and extent from that prophesied. 
The change is no proof of weakness in the veto, but rather shows 

1 Madison, Works, IV, 369. ^ Ante, §§ 46-49. 

2 Federalist, No. 73. ^ Ajite, §§ 95, 96. 
'^ Ante, § 14. ' An.'c, §§ 65-Si. 
* Ante, §§ 83-94. s Ante, § 22-36. 



140 Veto Power: — Political Development. Ch. vi. 

its vigor. The power can be adapted to the changing needs of 
the nation, without losing its efficacy. Indeed, the difference 
between the veto in 1789 and in 1889 is not a difference in nature 
but in exercise. Then it was used sparingly and in a cumbrous 
manner as a weapon of constitutional warfare ; to-day it is used 
frequently and easily as a means of preventing mistakes in the 
administration of the business of the government. This latter 
use is likely to become of increasing value as time goes on, for : 
"As the business of the country increases, as legislation piles its 
bills still higher, and as the whole social and political network 
grows more complicated in its demands and conflict of interests 
and its multiplicity of interferences, more and more will be the 
necessity of cutting Gordian knots with the swift, sharp edge of a 
single blow, and of having an executive brave enough to take 
the responsibility of interposing his veto." 



APPENDIX A. 

A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF ALL BILLS VETOED 

FROM APRIL 6, 1789, TO MARCH 4, 1 889, 

TOGETHER WITH A BRIEF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EACH BILL. 



Explanation of Signs and Abbreviations. 

A single star (*) placed before the number of the veto indicates that the bill passed 
one of the houses of Congress over the veto. 

A double star (**) placed before the number of the veto indicates that the bill 
passed both houses of Congress over the veto, and thus became a law without the 
President's signature. 

A dagger (f) placed before the number of the veto indicates that the bill was 
disposed of by a " pocket veto." 

The dates which precede the words " in the," in the history of the bill, indicate the 
day on which the bill was introduced into one of the houses of Congress, and the day on 
which it passed that house; e.g., the first dates in the history of the first bill mean that 
on Feb. 7, 1 792, the bill was introduced into the House of Representatives, and that on 
Feb. 21 it passed the House of Representatives. 

The letter P placed after a page of the Senate Journal indicates that on that page 
is recorded the passage by the Senate of the bill under consideration. 

The letter P placed after a page of the House Journal indicates that on that page 
is recorded the passage by the House of the bill under consideration. 

The letter R after a page of the Senate Journal indicates that on that page is 
recorded the reconsideration of the bill under consideration. 

The letter R after a page of the House Journal indicates that on that page is 
recorded the reconsideration of the bill under consideration. 

The sign O after a page indicates that on that page will be found the text of the veto. 

In references to the journals and in the numbers of the bills, sess. stands for session, 
and Cong, for Congress. Thus in the first veto, / sess. 2 Cong, means first session of the 
second Congress. 

After the title of each veto the paragraphs of the text in which that veto is discussed 
will be placed, enclosed in brackets, thus: [§ i]. 

Texts of the Vetoes. 

Reference (by the sign O) is in this Appendix invariably made to the Journals, 
because they are official, and are the only source in which all the messages appear. 
Nearly all the messages down to Aug. 4, 1886, will be found in the Senate Miscella- 
neous Documents, No. 53, of the 2 sess. of the 49 Cong. Most of the messages down 
to 1854 can be found in the Statesman's Manual. Lastly, a large proportion of the 
messages will be found, under the date of the message, in the records of Congressional 
debates; viz.: Annals of Congress (1789-1824); Debates in Congress (1825-1837); 
Congressional Globe (1833-1873); Congressional Record (1873-18S9). 

[141] 



142 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON (1789-1797).- [2 VETOES.] 

1. Apportionment of representatives. [§§ 14, 121.] 

H. R. i6j, I sess. 2 Cojtg. "An act for an apportionment of Representatives among 
the several States, according to the first enumeration." 

1792. Feb. 7 to Feb. 21, in the House. Feb. 21 to Mar. 12, in the Senate. 

Apr. 5, vetoed. Apr. 6, reconsidered by the House; vote, 28-33. 

House Journal, vol. I., i and 2 Cong. pp. 503, 507, 509, 510, 511, 516 P, 535, 538, 

540, 543, 544, 545, 549, 551, 563 O, 565 R. Senate Journal, vol. I., i sess. 2 Cong. 

PP- 394, 396, 404. 405, 406, 408, 409 P, 415, 416, 422. 

2. Reduction of the army. [§§ 97, 121.] 

H. R. 2ig, 2 sess. 4 Cong. " An act to alter and amend an act entitled ' An act to 
ascertain and fix the military establishment of the United States.' " 

1797. Jan. 30 to Feb. 8, in the House. P"eb. 9 to Feb. 20, in the Senate. 

Feb. 28, vetoed. Mar. i, reconsidered by the House; vote, 55-36. 

House Journal, vol. II., j and 4. Co7ig. pp. 666, 679, 683, 685 P, 708, 709, 714, 726 O, 

728 R. Senate Journal, vol. II., 2 sess. 4 Cong. pp. 321, 326, 327, 328 P, 329, 330, 

339 O. 

PRESIDENT MADISON (1809-1817).- [6 VETOES.] 

3. Incorporating church in Alexandria. [§ 39.] 

H. R. 755, 3 sess. II Cong. " An act incorporating the Protestant-Episcopal Church 
in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia." 

1810. Dec. 30 to 181 1, Jan. 28, in the House. i8i i, Jan. 28 to Feb. 8, in the Senate. 

i8n. Feb. 21, vetoed. Feb. 23, reconsidered by the House; vote, 29-74. 

House Journal, vol. VII., 11 Cong. pp. 457, 463, 504, 506 P, 538, 547, 554, 566 O, 

569, 570 R. Senate Journal, vol. IV., S sess. 11 Cong. pp. 552, 553, 559, 561, 565, 

566 P, 570, 573, 582. 

4. Land-grant for church in Mississippi. [§§ 39, 46.] 

H. R. I JO, J sess. II Cong. " An act for the relief of Richard Tervin, W'lliam Cole- 
man, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem 
Meeting-House, in the Mississippi Territory." 

1811. Jan. 7 to Feb. 6, in the House. Feb. 6 to Feb. 20, in the Senate, 

Feb. 28, vetoed. Mar. 2, reconsidered by the House; vote, 33-55. 

House Journal, vol. VII., 11 Cong. pp. 475, 533, 534 P, 564, 566, 574, 602 O, 608 R. 

Senate Journal, vol. IV., 3 sess. 11 Cong. pp. 563, 564, 569, 576, 577 P, 579, 

583. 593- 

5. Trials in district courts. [§ 15.] 

//. R. Si, I sess. 12 Cong. " An act providing for the trial of causes pending in the 
respective District Courts of the United States, in the case of the absence or disability 
cf the judges thereof." 

1812. Mar. 4 to Mar. 10, in the House. Mar. 10 to Mar. 18, in the Senate. 

Apr. 3, vetoed. Apr. 8, reconsidered by the House; vote, 26-70. 

House Journal, vol. VIII., 12 Cong. pp. 219, 235, 240, 241 P, 255, 258, 259, 260, 

261, 262, 264, 274 O, 279, 281 R. Senate Journal, vol. V., i sess. 12 Congi- pp. 72, 

74, 76, 78, 79 P, 82, 83, 99, 100. * 

t 6. Naturalization. [§ 40.] 

H. R. 170, I sess. 12 Cong. "An act supplementary to the acts heretofore passed on 
the subject of an uniform rule of naturalization." 



1 792-1830] Washington s to Jackson s Administration. 143 

x8i2. June 29 to July 2, in the House. July 2 to July 4, in the Senate. 

Nov. 6, veto message signed. 

House yotirnal, vol. VIII., 12 Cong. pp. 403, 413, 414 P, 421, 429, 544 O. Senate 

Jourttal, vol. V., i sess. 12 Cong. pp. 178, 179, 181, 182 P, 183, 184. 

7. Incorporating national bank. [§ 56.] 

S. 67, J sess. J J Cong. " An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the 
United States of America." 

1814. Dec. 2 to Dec. 9, in the Senate. Dec. 9 to 1815, Jan. 7, in the House. 

1815. Jan. 30, vetoed. Feb. 2, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 15-19. 

Senate journal, vol. V., 3 sess. ij Cong. pp. 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571 P, 597- 

603, 606-610, 614, 620 O, 622, 631 R. House yournal, j sess. ij Cong. pp. 294, 

295. 330. 389. 392, 394. 403. 414, 419. 434, 44°, 45°. 476, 484 P, 526, 531, 546, 553, 604. 

8. Internal improvements (Bonus Bill). [§§ 84-110.] 

H. R. 2g, 2 sess. 14 Cong. " An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal 
improvements." 

1816. Dec. 23 to 1S17, Feb. 8, in the House. 1817, Feb. 10 to Feb. 28, in the Senate. 

1817. Mar. 3, vetoed. Alar. 3, reconsidered by the House; vote, 61-63. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 14 Cong. pp. 98, 341, 345, 351, 369 P, 492, 504, 519, 534 O R. 
Seriate Journal, 2 sess, 14 Cong. pp. 216, 223, 239, 284, 308, 311, 320, 339, 340, 

341 p, 356, 374, 375, 393, 405-409 o. 

PRESIDENT MONROE (1817-1825).- [I VETO.] 

9. Internal improvements (Cumberland Road). [§§ 85, 121.] 

H. R. ^0, I sess. jy Cong. "An act for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland 
Road." 

1822. Jan. 21 to Apr. 29, in the House. Apr. 29 to May 3, in the Senate. 

May 4, vetoed. JNIay 6, reconsidered by the House; vote, 68-72. 

House Journal, i sess. ij Cong. pp. 169, 469, 491, 495, 496, 513 P, 549, 553, 560 O, 

578 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 17 Cong. pp. 316, 317, 318, 324, 331 P, 333, 335, 

337. 338. 

PRESIDENT JACKSON (1829-1837). -[12 VETOES.] 

10. Internal improvements (Maysville Road). [§ 86.] 

H. R. 2Sj, I sess. 21 Cong. "An act to authorize a subscription of stock in the Mays- 
ville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company." 

1830. Feb. 24 to Apr. 29, in the House. Apr. 29 to May 15, in the Senate. 

May 27, vetoed. May 28, reconsidered by the House; vote, 96-92. 

House Journal, i sess. 21 Cong. pp. ;i23> 57^' 581, 585 P, 664, 674, 733 O, 761 R. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 21 Cong. pp. 274, 276, 281, 285, 304, 306 P, 311, 313, 

316, 340. 

11. Internal improvements (turnpike stock). [§ 86.] 

.S". sy, I sess. 21 Cong. "An act to authorize a subscription of stock in the Washing- 
ton Turnpike Road Company." 

1S29. Dec. 30 to 1830, May 13, in the Senate. May 13 to May 29, in the House. 

1830. May 31, vetoed. May 31, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 21-17. 

Senate Journal, I sess. 21 Cong. pp. 55, 58, 256, 295, 298 P, 356, 357, 360, 360 O, 

382 R. House Journal, i sess. 21 Cong. pp. 646, 650, 654, 786, 801, 804 P, 807, 

809, 812. 



144 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

t 12. Internal improvements (light-houses and beacons). [§ 86] 

H. R. 304, I sess. 21 Cong. " An act for making appropriations for building light- 
houses, light-boats, beacons, and monuments, placing buoys, and for improving harbors 
and directing surveys." 

1830. Feb. 27 to Apr. 7, in the House. Apr, 7 to May 13, in the Senate. 

Dec. 6, veto message signed. 

House Journal, i sess. 21 Cong. pp. 348, 445, 510, 513 P, 646, 649, 668, 786, 790, 

801, 806. Senate Journal, i sess. 21 Cong. pp. 231, 252, 269, 287, 297, 299 P, 354, 

House Journal, 2 sess. 21 Cong. p. 15 O. 

1 13. Internal improvements (canal stock). [§ 86.] 

S. 74, I sess. 21 Cong. " An act to authorize a subscription for stock in the Louisville 
and Portland Canal Company." 

1830. Jan. 26 to Mar. 15, in the Senate. Mar. 15 to May 29, in the House. 

Dec. 6, veto message signed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 21 Co7ig. pp. 102, 117, 119, 184, 187 P, 356, 357, 360, 383. 

House Journal, i sess. 21 Cong. pp. 419, 420, 786, 799, 803 P, 807, 809. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 21 Cong. p. 13 O. 

14. Extension of charter of the U. S. Bank. [§§ 19, 57.] 
S. 147, I sess. 22 Cong. " An act to modify and continue the act entitled * An act to 
incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States.' " 

1832. Mar. 13 to June 11, in the Senate. June 11 to July 3, in the House. 

July 10, vetoed. July 13, reconsidered by Senate; vote, 22-19. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 22 Cong. pp. 183, 296, 297, 302, 305, 308, 310, 314, 318, 324, 

327. 329. l^Z, 339. 341. 344. 345 P. 394, 397. 40i, 433 O, 451, 456, 463 R. House ' 

7ournal, i sess. 22 Cong. pp. 871, 874, 879, 1035, 1044, 1066, 1074 P, 1076, 1082, 
.097, 1 162. 

t 15. Interest on State claims. [§ 54.] 

S. J, I sess. 22 Cong. "An act providing for the final settlement of the claims of 
States for interest on advances to the United States made during the last war." 

1831. Dec. 19 to 1832, Jan. 5, in the Senate. 1832, Jan. 5 to July 14, in the House. 

1832. Dec. 6, veto message signed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 22 Cong. pp. 30, 54, 59, 62 P, 480, 482. House Journal, 

1 sess. 22 Cong. pp. 156, 180, 237, 1166, 1174 P, 11 80, 1186. Senate Journal, 

2 sess. 22 Cong. p. 19 O. 

t 16. River and Harbor Bill. [§ 86.] 

H. R. J 16, I sess. 22 Cong. " An act for the improvement of certain harbors and the 
navigation of certain rivers." 

1832. Mar. 29 to June 5, in the House. June 6 to July 5, in the Senate. 

Dec. 6, veto message signed. 

House Journal, i sess. 22 Cong. pp. 551, 791, 802, S27, 837, 848, 850, 852 P, 1092, 

1099, 1152, 1153, 1157, I165, I183. Senate Journal, i sess. 22 Cong. pp. 331, 368, 

393. 399. 404 P. 456, 460, 468, 469, 481. House Journal, 2 sess. 22 Cong. p. 24 O. 

t 17. Proceeds of land sales (Clay's bill). [§§ 46, loi.] 
S. 6, 2 sess. 22 Co7ig. " An act to appropriate for a limited time the proceeds of the 
sales of the public lands of the United States and for granting lands to certain States." 

1832. Dec. II to 1833, Jan. 25, in the Senate. 1833, J^^n. 25 to Mar. I, in the 

House. 

1833. Dec. 4, veto message signed. 



1830-1841] yacksons and Tylers Administrations. 145 

Senate yournal, 2 sess. 22 Cong. pp. 26, 53, 54, 63, 70, 73, 76, 80, 85, 104, X07, 

109, III, 114, 119, 123, 125, 137, 138 P, 229, 230, 236. House Journal, z sess. 

22 Cong. pp. 239, 459, 460 P, 461, 462, 470. Senate Journal, i sess, 23 Cong. 

pp. 21 O, 50, 240. 

t 18. Internal improvements ("Wabash River). [§ 86.] 

S. 97, I sess. 2j Cong. " An act to improve the navigation of the Wabash River." 

1834. Feb. 18 to June 26, in the Senate. June 26 to June 28, in the House. 

Dec. I, veto message signed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 2j Cong. pp. 146, 182, 357 P, 358, 382, 385, 387, 415. 

Jlouse Jotirnal, i sess. 2j Cong. pp. 845, 853, 887, 888 P, 893, 901, 930. Senak 

Journal, 2 sess. 23 Cong. p. 23 O. 

19. Compromising claims against the Two Sicilies. [§ 21.] 

S. 160, 2 sess. 2j Cong. "An act to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to com- 
pronaise the Claims allowed by the Commissioners under the Treaty with the King of the 
Two Sicilies, concluded October 14, 1832." 

1835. Feb. 12 to Feb. 27, in the Senate. Feb. 27 to Feb. 28, in the House. 

Mar. 3, vetoed. Mar. 3, reconsidered by the Senate; laid on the table. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 2j Cong. pp. 156, 199 P, 203, 215, 217, 222, 233 O R. 

House Jotirnal, 2 sess. 23 Cong. pp. 476, 481 P, 503, 514. 

20. Regulation for congressional sessions. [§ 14.] 

S. 141, 1 sess. 24 Cong. " An act to appoint a day for the annual meeting of Congress." 

1836. Feb. 16 to June 2, in the Senate. June 3, in the House. 

June 9, vetoed. June 27, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 16-23. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 24 Cong. pp. 165, 393, 400 P, 401, 403, 406, 415, 421 O, 467, 
486 R. House Journal, i sess. 24 Cong. pp. 928, 931 P, 938, 970, 1108. 

t 21. Funds receivable for United States revenues. [§ 60.] 
S. 144, 2 sess. 24 Cong. " An act designating and limiting the funds receivable for the 
revenues of the United State^." 

1837. Jan. 18 to Feb. 10, in the Senate. Feb. 10 to Mar. I, in the House. 

Mar. 3, 11.45 P-M., veto message signed.^ 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 24 Cong. pp. 133, 144, 165, 169, 173, 177, 235 P, 309, 313, 
326. House Journal, 2 sess. 24 Cong. pp. 368, 420, 510, 556, 558 P, 567, 580. 

PRESIDENT TYLER (1841-1845). -[9 VETOES.] 

22. Incorporating the Fiscal Bank. [§§ 58, 124, 128.] 

S. J, I sess. 2"] Cong. " An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Fiscal Bank of 
the United States." 

1841. June 21 to July 28, in the Senate. July 28 to Aug. 6, in the House. 

Aug. 16, vetoed. Aug. 19, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 25-24. 

Senate Journal, i sess. .27 Cong. pp. 51, 60, 65, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 81, 84, 86, 

88, 100, 102, 104, 114, 116, 122, 125 P, 143, 144, 145, 165 O, 173, 178 R. House 

Journal, 1 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 288, 307, 311, 314, 318, 322, 323, 324 P, 326, 387. 

23. Incorporating the Fiscal Corporation. [§ 58.] 

H. R. 14, I sess. 2y Cong. " An act to provide for the better collection, safe keeping 
and disbursement of the public revenue, by means of a corporation styled the Fiscal 
Corporation of the United States." 

1 This message was never sent to Congress, but was deposited in the Department of State. See Senate 
Miscellaneous Documents, No. 53, p. 151, 49 Cong. 2 Se.«. 



146 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

1 84 1. July 21 to Aug. 23, in the House. Aug. 24 to Sept. 3, in the Senate. 

Sept. 9, vetoed. Sept. 10, reconsidered by the House; vote, 103-80. 

House Journal, i sess. 27 Cong, pp. 267, 394, 404, 405, 409 P, 410, 459, 460, 485 O^ 

497 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 27 Cong. pp. 212, 220, 228, 232, 234 P, 236, 

255. 

24. First "Whig tariff bill. [§§ 46, 53.] 

H. R. 480, 2 sess. 27 Cong. " An act to extend for a limited period the present laws 
for laying and collecting duties on imports." 

1842. June 9 to June 15, in the House. June 15 to June 24, in the Senate. 

June 29, vetoed. July 4, reconsidered by the House; vote, 42-144. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 936, 943, 967, 969, 972, 974 P, 1014, ioi6, 1023, 

1025, 1032 O, 1043, 1045, 1047, 1050 R. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 400, 

402, 407, 417, 426, 428 P, 430, 431, 453. 

25. Second Whig tariff bill. [§§ 46, 53.J 

H. R. 472, 2 sess. 27 Cojig. " An act to provide revenue from imports, and to change 
and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes." 

1842. June 3 to July 16, in the House. July 18 to Aug. 5, in the Senate. 

Aug. 9, vetoed. Aug. 17, reconsidered by the House; vote, 126-76. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 91 1, 933, 939, 995, 998, looo, 1003, 1004, 1056, 
1057, 1061, 1062, 1067, 1069, 1070, 1073, 1078-1110, iiio P, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1242 O, 

1252, 1261, 1296, 1327 R, 1343. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 27 Cong, pp.472, 48/, 

503, 508, 511, 513, 515, 520, 526, 528, 531, 537, 544 P, 545, 547, 549- 

t 26. Proceeds of public land sales. [§ 46.] 

H. R. 604, 2 sess. 27 Cong. " An act to repeal the proviso of the sixth section of the 
act entitled ' An act to appropriate the proceeds of the sales of the public lands and to 
grant pre-emption rights.' " 

1842. Aug. 25 to Aug. 26, in the House. Aug. 26 to Aug. 29, in the Senate. 

Dec. 14, veto message signed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 1409, 1420, 1422, 1423 P, 1444, 1450, 1468. 

Septate Journal, 2 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 613, 626, 631 P, 640, 645. House Journal, 

3 sess. 27 Cong, p- 57 O. 

t 27. Testimony in contested elections. [§ 15.] 

H. R. 210, 2 sess. 27 Cong. " An act regulating the taking of testimony in cases of 
contested elections, and for other purposes." 

1842. Feb. 21 to Aug. 8, in the House. Aug. 9 to Aug. 29, in the Senate. 

Dec. 14, veto message signed. 

House Jotirnal, 2 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 418, 693, 121 7, 1227, 1232, 1233 P, 1444, 1446, 

1452, 1453, 1458, 1464, 1471, 1478. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 557, 561, 

585, 597, 603, 626, 632 P, 637, 638, 640, 642, 647, 648. House Journal, 3 sess. 

27 Cong. p. 57 O. 

t 28. Payment of Cherokee certificates. [§ 41.] 

H. R. J7, J sess. 27 Cong. Resolution " directing payment of the certificates or 
awards issued by the commissioners, under the treaty with the Cherokee Indians." 

1843. Feb. 9 to Feb. 25, in the House. Feb. 25 to Mar. 2, in the Senate. 

Dec. 18, veto message signed. 

House Journal, 3 sess. 27 Cong. pp. 339, 457, 462 P, 542, 553, 557. Seriate Jour- 

nal, J sess. 27 Cong. pp. 222, 229, 261, 275 P, 284, 295. House Journal, i sess, 

28 Cong. p. 69 O, 



1 841-1847] Tyler s to Pierce s Administration. 147 

29. Rivers and harbors. [§ 87.] 

H. H. 203, I sess. 28 Cong. "An act making appropriation for certain harbors and 
rivers." 

1844. Mar. 8 to May 16, in the House. May 17 to June l, in the Senate. 

June II, vetoed. June 11, reconsidered by the House; vote, 104-84. 

House Joiirnal, i sess. 28 Cong. pp. 542, 751, 752, 770, 772, 842, 934, 935, 936, 937, 

938 P, looi, 1002, 1081 O, 1083 R, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1093, I097- Senate journal, 

J sess. 28 Cong pp. 2S6, 287, 294, 317 P, 321, 324, 327, 347. 

** 30. Revenue cutters and steamers. [§§ 21, 129.] 

S. 66, 2 sess. 28 Cong. " An act relating to revenue cutters and steamers." 

1845. Jan. 6 to Feb. 4, in the Senate. Feb. 4 to Feb. 7, in the House. 

Feb. 20, vetoed. Mar. 3, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the vp^o, 

41 to I. Mar. 3, by the House; passed over the veto, 127 to 30. 

Senate Jouryial, 2 sess. 28 Cong. pp. 73, 78, 124, 133 P, 145, 149, 157, 193 O, 194, 

197, 203, 256 R, 262. House jfouriial, 2 sess. 28 Cong. pp. 324, 326, 339 P, 348, 

568 R. 

PRESIDENT POLK (1845-1849).- [3 VETOES.] 

31. Riveis and harbors. [§ 88.] 

H. R. 18, I sess. 2g Cong. " An act making appropriations for the improvement of 
certain harbors and rivers." 

1845. Dec. 31 to 1846, Mar. 20, in the House. 1846, Mar. 23 to July 24, in the 

Senate. 

1846. Aug. 3, vetoed. Aug. 4, reconsidered by the House; vote, 97-91. 

House yournal, i sess. 2g Cong. pp. 180, 408, 409, 448, 460, 464, 492, 493, 500, 503, 
504, 508, 514, 516, 518, 522, 525, 531, 536, 537, 538, 539-566, 566 P, 1 146, 1 150, 1 154, 

1209 O, 1 21 7 R, 121 8. Senate yournal, i sess. 29 Cong. pp. 208, 309, 426, 429, 

440 P, 444, 446, 447, 480. 

32. French spoliation claims. [§ 64.] 

S. 68, I sess. 2g Cong. " An act to provide for the ascertainment and satisfaction of 
claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the thirty- 
first day of July, 1801." 

1846. Feb. 2 to June 8, in the Senate. June 8 to Aug. 4, in the House. 

Aug. 8, vetoed. Aug. 10, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 27-15. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 2g Cong. pp. 128, 258, 261, 277, 302, 305, 308, 316, 330, 

334 P, 480, 482, 489, 490, 513 O, 520 R. House Journal, i sess. 2g Cong. pp. 924, 

932, 1071, I185, 1208, 1219, I22I, 1223 P, 1225, 1242, 1248, 1308. 

t 33. Internal improvements. [§ 88.] 

H R. 84, I sess. 2g Cong. "An act to provide for continuing certain vi'orks in the 
Territory of Wisconsin, and for other purposes." 

1846. Jan. 9 to 1847, Feb. 20, in the House. 1847, Feb. 22 to Mar. 3, in the Senate. 

1847. Dec. 15, veto message signed. 

House Journal, i sess. 2g Cong. pp. 216, 608. House Journal, 2 sess. 2g Cong. 

PP- 377> 378, 394) 395 P, 505, 506, 509. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 2g Cong. pp. 218, 

221, 223, 269 P, 274, 287. House Journal, i sess. 30 Co7ig. pp. 82 O, loi, 534, 560. 

PRESIDENT PIERCE (1853-1857). -[9 VETOES.] 
34. Land grants for indigent insane. [§ 47.] 

S. 44, I sess. 33 Cong. " An act making a grant of public lands to the several States 
for the benefit of indigent insane persons." 



148 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

1853. Dec. 21 to 1854, Mar. 8, in the Senate. 1854, Mar. 8 to Apr. 19, in the House. 

1854. May 3, vetoed. July 6, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 21-26. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jj Cong. pp. 58, 121, 171, 202, 203, 224, 227, 230, 241, 243 P, 
334, 340, 343, 348, 361 O, 372, 374, 390, 393, 395, 397, 420, 423, 431, 444, 447, 450, 453,, 

454, 476, 477, 478 R, 479. House Journal, i sess. jj Cong. pp. 467, 576, 665- 

670 P, 694, 1 105. 

35. Internal improvements (completion). [§ 89.] 

If. R. jg2, I sess. jj Cong. " An act making appropriation for the repair, preservation 
and completion of certain public works heretofore commenced under the authority of 
law." 

1854. June 10 to July 13, in the House. July 13 to Aug. i, in the Senate. 

Aug. 4, vetoed.^ Dec. 6, reconsidered by the House; vote, 95-80. 

House Journal, i sess. 33 Cong. pp. 979, 1125, 1 126, 1130, 1131, II33-I136, 1136 P, 

1247, 1262, 1263, 1284, 1311, 1313-1318, 1323-1325, 1327, 1334, 1337, 1340 O.- 

Senate Journal, i sess. jj Cong. pp. 501, 502, 555, 592, 593, 599, 600, 601, 609-61 1, 

615-618, 618 P, 666, 667, 678, 679, 684, 686. House Journal, 2 sess.jj Cong. pp. 8, 

9, 49 R, 50, 124. Senate Jotirnal, 2 sess. jj Cong. pp. 36, 79, 91. 

36. French spoliation claims. [§ 64.] 

H. R. 117, I sess. jj Co7ig. " An act to provide for the ascertainment of claims of 
American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the thirty-first of 
July, one thousand eight hundred and one." 

1854. Jan. 4 to 1855, Jan. 27, in the House. 1855, Jan. 29 to Feb. 6, in the Senate. 

1855. Feb. 17, vetoed. Feb. 19, reconsidered by the House; vote, 113-86. 

House Journal, i sess. jj Cong. pp. 163, 164. House Journal, 2 sess. jj Cong, 

pp. 237, 239, 240, 243, 250, 252, 253 P, 335, 341, 352, 397 O, 413 R, 414, 415, 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. jj Cong. pp. 168, 174, 180, 181, 198, 204, 205 P, 222, 226,. 
232, 292, 

37. Subsidy for ocean mails. [§ 82.] 

H. R. J9J, 2 sess. jj Cong. " An act making appropriations for the transportation of 
the United States mail, by ocean steamers and otherwise, during the fiscal years ending 
the 30th day of June, 1855, and the 30th of June, 1856." 

1854. Dec. 22 to 1855, Feb. 17, in the House. 1855, Feb. 17 to Feb. 28, in the 

Senate. 

1855. Mar. 3, vetoed. Mar. 3, reconsidered by the House; vote, 79-99. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 33 Cong. pp. 102, 383, 384, 387, 388, 389, 391-396, 39^ Pr 

497, 506, 509, 540 O, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546 R, 547. Seiiate Journal, 2 sess. 

S3 Cong pp. 282, 290, 314, 335, 336, 342, 343, 344 P, 345, 353, 357, 382. 

** 38. Internal improvements (Mississippi River). [§§ 89, 109.] 
.S". 14, I and 2 sess. 34 Cong. " An act to remove obstructions to navigation in the 
mouth of the Mississippi River at the Southwest Pass and Pass k I'Outre." 

1856. Feb. 4 to Mar. 17, in the Senate. Mar. 20 to May 12, in the House. 

May 19, vetoed. July 7, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

31 to 12. July 8, by the House; passed over the veto, 143-55. 

Senate Journal, i and 2 sess. 34 Cong. pp. 85, 93, 187 P, 321, 322, 323, 340 O, 341, 

348, 359, 362, 365, 402, 418 R, 419, 431, 432, 433. House Journal, i and 2 sess, 

34 Cong. pp. 703, 779, 908, 959, 960 P, 964, 987, 1 1 74, 1 1 75, 1 1 76 R. 

1 Dec. 30, 1854, the President gave his reasons for this veto at considerable length. See Senate Mis- 
cellaneous Documents, No. 53, p. 221, 49 Cong. 2 sess. 



1854-1859] Pierce s mid Biichanajts Administrations. 149 

** 39. Internal improvements (Saint Clair Flats). [§ 89.] 
S. I, J and 2 sess. ^4 Cong. "An act making an appropriation for deepening the 
channel over the Saint Clair Flats, in the State of Michigan." 

1856. Feb. 4 to Mar. 17, in the Senate. Mar. 20 to May 5, in the House. 

May 19, vetoed. July 7, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

28 to 8. July 8, by the House; passed over the veto, 139 to 55. 

Senate yournal, i and 2 sess. J4 Cong. pp. St,, 84, 91, 186 P, 304, 305, 310, 311, 

341 O, 342, 420 R, 431, 432, 433. House Journal, i and 2 sess. j^ Cong. pp. 703, 

779» 923. 924 P> 933> 987. 1 1 74, 1 1 76 R- 
** 40. Internal improvements (Saint Mary's River). [§ 89.] 
.S". 2, I and 2 sess. ^4 Co7ig. "An act making an appropriation for deepening the 
channel over the flats of the Saint Mary's River in the State of Michigan." 

1856. Feb. 4 to Mar. 17, in the Senate. Mar. 20 to May 12, in the House. 

May 22, vetoed. July 7, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

28 to 10. July 8, by the House; passed over the veto, 136 to 54. 

Senate Journal, i atid 2 sess. 34. Cong. pp. 84, 91, 186 P, 321-323, 351 O, 352, 

419 R, 432, 433. House Journal, i and 2 sess. j^ Cong. pp. 703, 779, 957 P, 964, 

987, 1 1 74, 1177 R. 

** 41. Internal improvements (Des Moines Rapids), [§§ 89, in.] 
H. R. 12, I and 2 sess. 34 Cong. " An act for continuing the improvement of the Des 
Moines Rapids in the Mississippi River." 

1856. Feb. 18 to July 28, in the House. July 28 to July 31, in the Senate. 

Aug. II, vetoed. Aug. 11, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

130 to 54. Aug. 16, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 30 to 14. 

House Journal, i and 2 sess. 34 Cong. pp. 555, 556, 871, 1292, 1293, 1294 P, 1333, 

1334, 1420 O R, 1421, 1505. Senate Journal, i and 2 sess. ^4 Cong. pp. 485, 486, 

49i» 492, 501 P, 508, 509, 512, 559, 560, 585, 597, 620 R, 621. 

** 42. Internal improvements (Patapsco River). [§§ 89, in.] 
S. jj, I and 2 sess. 34 Cong. " An act for the improvement of the navigation of the 
Patapsco River, and to render the Port of Baltimore accessible to the war steamers of 
the United States." 

1856. Feb. 6 to Mar. 17, in the Senate. Mar. 20 to Aug. 4, in the House. 

Aug. 14, vetoed. Aug. 16, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

31 to 14. Aug. 16, by the House; passed over the veto, 127 to 47. 

Senate Journal, i and 2 sess. ^4 Cong. pp. 94, 187 P, 514, 521, 524, 527, 608 O, 609, 
615, 621, 622 R, 626, 629. House Journal, i and 2 sess. ^4 Cong. pp. 703, 843, 

874, 1355, 1356 p, i373> mi^ 1488, 1492, 1493. 1499 R, 1500. 

PRESIDENT BUCHANAN (1857-1861). -[7 VETOES.] 

t 43. Overland mail. [§ 21.] 

H. R. J7, / sess. jj Cong. " A joint resolution in regard to the carrying of the United 
States mails from Saint Joseph, Missouri, to Placerville, Cahfornia." 

1858. June 10, in the House. June 10 to June 12, in the Senate. 

1859. Jan. 7, veto message signed. 

House Journal, i sess. jj Cong. pp. 1071 P, 1 127, 1147. Senate Jour.ial, i sess. 

SS Cong. pp. 660, 669, 698, 704 P, 705, 707, 708, 710. House Journal, 2 sess. 

35 Cong. p. 151 O. 

44. Land grants for agricultural colleges. [§ 47.] 

H. R. 2, 2 sess, jj Cong. " An act donating public lands to the several States and 



150 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

Territories which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic 
arts." 

1857. Dec. 14 to 1858, Apr. 22, in the House. 1858, Apr. 22 to 1859, Feb. 7, in 

the Senate. 

1859. Feb. 24, vetoed. Feb. 26, reconsidered by the House; vote, 105-96. 

House Journal, i sess. jj Cong. pp. 67, 68, 73, 74, 77, 629, 632, 653, 654, 655, 667- 

672, 672 P. Se7tate Journal, i sess. jj Cong. pp. 371, 376, 422, 483, 484. 

House Journal, 2 sess. jj" Cong. pp. 359, 425-428, 433, 437, 501 O, 508 R. Settate 

Journal, 2 sess. JJ Cong. pp. 57, 61, 90, 244-246, 251, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 278 P, 
326, 327, 332, 

t 45. Internal improvements (Saint Clair Flats). [§ 90.] 
.S". 32 J, I sess. jj Cong. " An act making an appropriation for deepening the channel 
over the Saint Clair Flats, in the State of Michigan." 

1858. May 10 to Dec. 21, in the Senate. Dec. 22 to 1859, Mar. 2, in the House. 

i860. Feb. I, veto message signed. 

Sejtate Journal, i sess. jj Cong. p. 428. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jj Cong. pp. 

82 P, 428, 431, 434, 439. House Journal, 2 sess. jj Cong. pp. 107, 219, 547, 548, 

549 P, 559, 563. Senate Journal, i sess. j6 Cong. pp. 114 O, 121, 128. 

t 46. Internal improvements (Mississippi River) . [§ 90.] 
S. Res. 87, 2 sess. jj Cong. " Joint resolution in relation to removal of obstructions to 
navigation in the mouth of the Mississippi River." 

1859. Mar. 2, in the Senate. Mar. 2, in the House. 

i860. Feb. 6, veto message signed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 55 Cong. pp. 423 P, 428, 431, 434, 439. House Jour- 
nal, 2 sess. J5 Cong. pp. 540, 546 P, 559, 563. Senate Journal, i sess. j6 Cong. 

p. 129 o. 

47. Relief of A. Edwards and Co. [§ 66.] 

•S". 2g, I sess. 36 Cong. " An act for the relief of Arthur Edwards and his associates." 

i860. Jan. 3 to Mar. 30, in the Senate, Apr. 2 to Apr. 9, in the House. 

Apr. 17, vetoed. June 7, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 22-30. 

Senate Journal, i sess. j6 Cong. pp. 57, II4, 325 P, 374, 376, 377, 380, 406 O, 453, 

580 R, 581. House Journal, i sess. j6 Cong. pp. 645, 670, 671, 692, 693, 694 P, 

703- 

48. Homestead Act. [§ 47.] 

S. 416, I sess. j6 Cong. " An act to secure homesteads to actual settlers on the public 
domain, and for other purposes." 

i860. Apr. 17 to May 10, in the Senate. May ii to May 21, in the House. 

June 22, vetoed. — —June 23, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 28-18. 

Senate Jouriial, j sess. j6 Cong. pp. 407, 410, 412, 414, 415, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 
449, 450, 454, 456, 457, 458 P, 487, 533, 538, 539, 615, 620, 623, 656, 657, 667, 669, 710, 

711, 716, 719, 723, 747 O, 753, 756 R, 757. House Jou7-nal, isess.j6 Cong. pp. 823, 

884-888, 888 P, 950, 958, 1056, 1092, 1096, 1 154, 1155-1157, 1 158, 1 163. 

49. Relief of Hockaday and Leggit. [§ 66.] 

H. R. gij, 2 sess. j6 Cong. " An act for the relief of Hockaday and Leggit." 

1861. Jan. 7, in the House. Jan. 10 to Jan. 11, in the Senate. 

Jan. 25, vetoed. Jan. 26, reconsidered by the House; vote, 81-67. 

House Journal, 2 sess. j6 Cong. pp. 148 P, 175, 179, 227 O, 228 R, 229. Senate 

Journal, 2 sess. j6 Cong. pp. 86, 89 P, 94, 105. 



1859-1S66] Buchanans to yohnson s Administration. 151 

PRESIDENT LINCOLN (1861-1865). -[3 VETOES.] 

50. Bank notes in the District of Columbia. [§ 60.] 

S. jgs, 2 sess. jy Cong. " An act to repeal that part of an act of Congress which 
prohibits the circulation of bank notes of a less denomination than five dollars in the 
District of Columbia." 

1862. Feb. II to Apr. 4, in the Senate. Apr. 7 to June 11, in the House. 

June 23, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 37 Cong. pp. 191, 373 P, 638, 641, 645, 650, 705 O, 734. 

Hotise Journal, 2 sess. 37 Cong. pp. 511, 524, 525, 841 P, 860, 864. 

51. Medical officers for the army. [§§ 97, 126.] 

S. 34J, 2 sess. J7 Cong. " An act to provide for additional medical officers of the 
volunteer service." 

1862. June 9 to June Ii, in the Senate. June 12 to June 13, in the House. 

July 2, vetoed. July 2, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 0-37. 

Se7tate Journal, 2 sess. 37 Coiig. pp. 620, 623, 633 P, 650, 658, 663, 706, 713, 714, 
"746 O R. House Journal, 2 sess. 37 Cong. pp. 844, 857 P, 876, 881, 928, 950. 

t 52. Correction of clerical errors. [§§ 98, 126.] 

H. Res. 123, J sess. jS Cong. " Joint resolution to correct certain clerical errors in the 
internal revenue act." 

1864. July 2, in the House. July 4, in the Senate, 

1865. Jan. 5, veto message signed. 

House Journal, i sess. j8 Cong. p. 103 1 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 38 Cong. 

p. 751 P. House Journal, 2 sess. j5 Cong. p. 80 O. 

PRESIDENT JOHNSON (1865-1869). -[21 VETOES.] 

53. Freedmen's Bureau. [§ 34.] 

S. 60, I sess. j>9 Cong. " An act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and 
Refugees." 

1866. Jan. 5 to Jan. 25, in the Senate. Jan. 25 to Feb. 6, in the House. 

Feb. 19, vetoed. Feb. 20, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 30-18. 

Senate Journal, i sess. sg Cong. pp. 62, 72, 77, 78, 86, 88, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 

103, 104, 105, 106, 109 P, no, 112, 140, 145, 147, 152, 153, 168 O, 173-176, 179 R. 

Hotise Journal, i sess. jg Cong. pp. 188, 189, 207, 213, 218, 225, 233, 235, 240 P, 255, 
256, 266, 268. 

** 54. Civil Rights Act. [§§ 34, 42.] 

S. 61, I sess. J9 Cong. " An act to protect all persons in the United States in their 
civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." 

1866. Jan. 5 to Feb. 2, in the Senate.- Feb. 3 to Mar. 13, in the House. 

Mar. 27, vetoed. Apr.- 6, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

33 to 15. Apr. 9, by the House; passed over the veto, 122 to 41. 

Senate Journal, i sess. sg Cong. pp. 62, 72, 78, no, 112, II 7, 120, 125, 127, 1 28, 

131, 132 P, 229, 231, 236, 237, 240, 241, 279 O, 285, 306, 313, 317 R, 324. House 

Journal, i sess. sg Cong. pp. 225, 232, 240, 345, 352, 372, 377, 380, 382, 396, 397 P, 
409, 414, 521, 526, 528 R. 

55. Admission of Colorado. [§ 50.] 

S. 74, I sess. jg Cong. "An act for the admission of the State of Colorado into the 
Union." 



152 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

1866. Jan. 12 to Apr. 25, in the Senate. Apr. 26 to May 3, in the House. 

May 15, vetoed. 
Senate Joiirnal, i sess. S9 Cong. pp. 76, 90, 212, 225, 227, 229, 230, 233, 352, 358, 

370, 372, 373 P, 374, 398, 403, 405, 430 O, 432,433- ^ouse Journal, i sess. sg Cong. 

pp, 622, 657, 661 P, 668, 672. 

56. Public lands (Montana Iron Company). [§§ 48, 126.] 

S. 20J, I sess. J9 Cong. " An act to enable the New York and Montana Iron Mining 

and Manufacturing Company to purchase a certain amount of the public lands not now 

in the market." 

1866. Mar. 15 to May i, in the Senate. May i to June 5, in the House. 

June 15, vetoed. 
Senate Journal, i sess. jg Cong. pp. 235, 371, 377, 379, 388 P, 492, 494, 495, 531 O, 

535, 536, 537. House Journal, i sess. jg Cong. pp. 645, 698, 702, 794 P, 799, 824. 

** 57. Continuation of Freedmen's Bureau. [§ 34.] 

H. R. 61 J, I sess. J9 Coftg. " An act to continue in force, and to amend ' An act to 
establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, and for other purposes.' " 

1866. May 22 to May 29, in the House. May 30 to June 26, in the Senate. 

July 16, vetoed. July 16, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

103 to 33. July 16, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 33 to 12. 

House Journal, i sess. sg Cong. pp. 737, 741, 744, 746, 770-773 P, 915, 924, 936, 

943, 947, 951, 958, 1024 O, 1028, 1030, 1039 R, 1050. Senate Jotirnal, i sess. 

Sg Cong. pp. 476, 506, 527, 575, 576 P, 590, 594, 595, 600, 601, 608, 610, 660, 66l R. 

58. Surveying district of Montana. [§§ 48, 126.] 

H. R. 466, I sess. jg Cong. " An act erecting the Territory of Montana into a survey- 
ing district, and for other purposes." 

1866. Apr. 9 to May 24, in the House. May 24 to July 16, in the Senate. 

July 28, vetoed. 

House Jourttal, i sess. jg Cong. pp. 525, 743 P, 1028, 1044, 105 1, 1065, 1196O, 1 197, 
1198. Senate Journal, i sess. gg Cong. pp. 463, 465, 481, 656 P, 657, 679, 681, 686. 

** 59. Suffrage in the District of Columbia. [§ 34.] 

S. I, I sess. 3g Cong. " An act to regulate the elective franchise in the District of 
Columbia." 

1865. Dec. 4 to 1866, Dec. 13, in the Senate. 1866, Dec. 14, in the House. . 

1867. Jan- 5, vetoed. Jan. 7, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

29 to 10. Jan. 8, by the House; passed over the veto, 112-38. 

Senate Journal, i sess. ^g Cong. pp. 5, 26, 53, 70, 76, 82, 86, 582, 584. Senate 

Journal, 2 sess. sg Cong. pp. 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36 P, t,^, 42, 43, 56, 64 O, 74, 77 R. 
House Journal, 2 sess. jg Cong. pp. 75, 77 P, 86, 108, 131, 132, 133 R, 

60. Admission of Colorado. [§ 50.] 

.5". 462, 2 sess. J9 Cong. " An act to admit the State of Colorado into the Union." 

1866. Dec. 10 to 1867, Jan. 9, in the Senate. 1867, Jan. 10 to Jan. 15, in the House. 

1867. Jan. 29, vetoed. Mar. i, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 29-19. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. gg Cong. pp. 27, 30, 83, 84 P, 104, 106, 107, no, 154, 157 O, 

162 R, 395, 396. House Journal, 2 sess. 3g Cong. pp. 145, 174, 175, 176 P, 177, 

180, 181, 183. 

** 61. Admission of Nebraska. [§ 50.] 

S. 4j6, 2 sess. sg Cong. " An act for the admission of the State of Nebraska into the 
Union." 



1866-1867] yoknsojis Administration. 153 

1866, Dec, 5 to 1867, Jan. 9, in the Senate. 1867, Jan. 9 to Jan. 15, in the House. 

1867. Jan. 29, vetoed. Feb. 8, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

31 to 9. Feb. 9, by the House; passed over the veto, 103-55. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. sg Cong. pp. 19, 22, 26, 39, 43, 46, 50, 51, 53, 56, 74, 75, 78, 

81, 82, 83 P, 84, loi, 105, 106, 107, 110, 163 O, 166 R, 228, 235. Hotise Journal, 

2 sess. 3g Cong. pp. 142, 148, 149, 158, 170, 172, 174 P, 180, 181, 183, 353, 354 R. 

** 62. Tenure of Office Act. [§§ 28, 34.] 

.S". 4_S3, 2 sess. 3g Cong. "An act to regulate the tenure of certain civil offices." 

1866. Dec. 3 to 1867, Jan. 18, in the Senate. 1867, Jan. 19 to Feb. 2, in the House. 

1867. Mar. 2, vetoed. Mar. 2, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto- 

35 to n. Mar. 2, by the House; passed over the veto, 138 to 40. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 3g Cong. pp. 6, 22, 26, 59, 74, 87, 91, 92, 93, 98, loi, 107, 
III, 115, 116 P, 198, 216, 266, 267, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 315, 412 O, 416, 417, 418, 

419 R, 423. House Jourfial, 2 sess. jg Cong. pp. 195, 196, 299, 305, 306, 307, 308, 

310, 311, 312 P, 344, 379, 389, 421, 424, 425, 426, 438, 578, 580 R. 

** 63. Reconstruction Act. [§ 34.] 

H. R. 1143, 2 sess. J9 Cong. " An act to provide for the more efficient government of 
the rebel States." 

1867. Feb. 6 to Feb. 13, in the House. Feb. 13 to Feb. 16, in the Senate. 

Mar. 2, vetoed. Mar. 2, reconsidered by the House ; passed over the veto, 

138 to 51. Mar. 2, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 38 to lO. 

House Journal, 2 sess. sg Cong pp. 345, 349, 352, 353, 363, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 
375' 376 P, 413- 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 433, 435, 436, 442, 443, 444, 457, 471, 

562, 563 O, 563-575 R, 583. Senate Journal, 2 sess. ^g Cong. pp. 257, 258, 266, 

275, 278-281, 286-294 P, 306, 316, 317, 319, 320, 325, 331, 419, 420, 424 R. 

** 64. Supplemental Reconstruction Act. [§ 34.] 

H. R. 33, I sess. 40 Cong. " An act supplementary to an act entitled ' An act to pro- 
vide for the more efficient government of the rebel States.' " 

1867. Mar. II, in the House. Mar. 12 to Mar. 16, in the Senate. 

Mar. 23, vetoed. Mar. 23, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

114 to 25. Mar. 23, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 40 to 7. 

House Journal, i sess. 40 Cong. pp. 35, 36 P, 37, 53, 58, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 80, 

98 O, 99, 100, loi, 102 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 40 Cong. pp. 31, 32, 34, 40, 41, 

45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 P, 59, 60, 64, 66, 67, 68, 73, 87, 88 R. 

** 65. Supplemental Reconstruction Act. [§ 34.] 

H, R. 123, J sess. 40 Cong. " An act supplementary to an act entitled ' An act to pro- 
vide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,' passed on the second day oi' 
March, 1867, and an act supplementary thereto, passed on the twenty-third day of 
March, 1867." 

1867. July 8 to July 9, in the House. July 9 to July 11, in the Senate. 

July 19, vetoed. July 19, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto^ 

109 to 25. July 19, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 30 to 6. 

House Journal, J sess. 40 Cong. pp. 175, 176 P, 190, 194, 199, 202, 206, 207, 210, 

214, 215, 230, 232 O, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 R, 243, 244. Senate Journal, 

I sess. 40 Cong. pp. 141, 148, 149 P, 151, 152, 153, 155, 158, 159, 169, 170-177 R. 

** 66. Joint resolution on reconstruction. [§ 34.] 

H. Res. 7/, I sess. 40 Cong. " Joint resolution to carry into effect the several acts 
providing for the more efficient government of the rebel States." 



154 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

1867. July 13, in the House. July 13 to July 15, in the Senate. 

July 19, vetoed. July 19, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

99 to 22. July 19, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 32 to 4. 

House Journal, i sess. 40 Cong. pp. 208 P, 213, 214, 215, 240 O R, 243, 244. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 40 Cong. pp. 155, 156 P, 158, 159, 170, 178 R. 

** 67. Amending Judiciary Act. [§ 34.] 

S. 21 J, 2 sess. 40 Cong. " An act to amend an act entitled ' An act to amend the - 
Judiciary Act, passed the twenty-fourth of September, seventeen hundred and eighty- 
nine.' " 

1868. Jan. 6 to Mar. 11, in the Senate. Mar. 11 to Mar. 12, in the House. 

Mar. 25, vetoed. Mar. 26, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

33 to 9. Mar. 27, by the House; passed over the veto, 115 to 34. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 73, 292, 293 P, 300, 304, 308, 347 O, 348, 349, 
350, 352 R, 355. House Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 506, 512, 513 P, 516, 582, 584 R. 

** 68. Admission of Arkansas. [§ 34.] 

H. R. lo^g, 2 sess. 40 Cong. " An act to admit the State of Arkansas to representation 
in Congress." 

1868. May 7 to May 8, in the House. May 12 to June i, in the Senate. 

June 20, vetoed. June 20, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

III to 31. June 22, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 30 to 7, 

House Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong, pp.661, 663, 664 P, 788, 800, 804, 809, 814, 819, 

829, 898, 900 O, 903 R, 915. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 392, 398, 399, 

424, 428, 430, 431, 434, 435, 438, 439, 440 P, 453, 454, 457, 462, 463, 525, 526, 527, 528, 
532 R, 533. 

** 69. Admission of Southern States. [§ 34.] 

H. R. 10^8, 2 sess. 40 Cong. " An act to admit the States of North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida to representation in Congress." 

1868. May II to May 14, in the House. May 16 to June 10, in the Senate. 

June 25, vetoed. June 25, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

108 to 32. June 25, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 35 to 8. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 676, 683, 686, 687, 688, 689 P, 838, 839, 841, 

848, 853, 931 O, 932 R. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 399, 400, 442, 456, 

458, 467, 471, 472, 473, 474 P, 480, 543, 544 R. 

** 70. Exclusion of electoral votes of unreconstructed States. [§ 34.] 
S. Res. ijg, 2 sess. 40 Cong. " A resolution excluding from the electoral college the 
votes of States lately in rebellion which shall not have been reorganized." 

1868. June 2 to July 10, in the Senate. July II to July 20, in the House. 

July 20, vetoed. July 20, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

45 to 8. July 20, by the House; passed over the veto, 134 to 36. 

Senate Jourjial, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 443, 558, 568, 578, 581, 614, 616, 621, 622, 

623, 624, 625 P, 637, 644, 699 O, 700, 701, 702 R, 703. House Journal, 2 sess, 

40 Co7ig. pp. 1040, 1044, 1046 P, 1 1 16, 1 1 18 R. 

** 71. Discontinuance of Freedmen's Bureau. [§ 34.] 

S. 567, 2 sess. 40 Cong. " An act relating to the Freedmen's Bureau, and providing 
for its discontinuance." 

1868. June 24 to July 1 1, in the Senate. July 1 1 to July 13, in the House. 

July 25, vetoed. July 25, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

42 to 5. July 25, by the House; passed over the veto, 115 to 23. 



1867-1871] Johnsoiis and G rani's Administrations. 155 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 539, 55S, 634, 635 P, 644, 654, 659, 671, 759 O, 
760 R. House Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 1043, i°57 P) i°74> 1086, 1194 R. 

72. Trustees of colored schools in the District of Columbia. [§ 34.] 
S. bog, 2 sess. 40 Cong. "An act transferring the duties of trustees of colored schools 
of Washington and Georgetown." 

1868. July 10, in the Senate. July 10 to 1869, Feb. 5, in the House. 

1869. Feb. 13, yetoed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 617 P. House Journal, 2 sess, 40 Cong. 

pp. 1026, 1 199, 1200. Senate Journal, 3 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 211, 220, 257 O, 258- 

House Jottrnal, 3 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 286 P, 292. 

** 73. Tariff on copper. [§ 53.] 

H. R. 1460, 2 sess. 40 Cong. " An act regulating the duties on imported copper and 
copper ores." 

1868. July 25 to Dec. 8, in the House. Dec. 9 to 1869, Jan. 19, in the Senate. 

1869. Feb. 22, vetoed. Feb. 23, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

115 to 56. Feb. 24, by the Senate ; passed over the veto, 38 to 12. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 40 Cong. pp. 1206, 121 3, 1 221. House Journal, j sess. 

40 Cong. pp. 17, 19, 20 P, 184, 257, 299, 304, 418, 422 O, 423 R, 440. Senate 

Journal, j sess. 40 Cong. pp. 11, 16, 49, 108, 114, 115, 119, 120, 121 P, 220, 221, 326, 
338 R, 340. 

PRESIDENT GRANT (1869-1877). -[43 VETOES.] 

* 74. Relief of RoUin White. [§ 69.] 

S. 273, J sess. 41 Cong. "An act for the relief of Rollin White." 

1869. Apr. 9, in the Senate. Apr. 9, in the House. 

1870. Jan. II, vetoed. May 31, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

41 to 13. June 22, by the House; vote, 12-168. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 41 Cong. pp. 149, 155 P, 163. House Jourjial, i sess. 

41 Cong. pp. 216, 237 P, 238. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 31, 82 O, 157, 

288, 735 R, 874. House Journal, 2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 886, 1069 R. 

75. Southern Union troops. [§ 97.] 

S. 4^6, 2 sess. 41 Co7ig. " An act to fix the status of certain federal soldiers enlisting 
in the Union army from the States of Alabama and Florida." 

1870. Feb. I to Mar. 10, in the Senate. Mar. 11 to July 8, in the House. 

July 14, vetoed. 

Senate Jourtial, 2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 171, 352 P, 1003, 1009, 1021, 1078 O, 1080. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 456, 701, 1 177 P, 1182. 

76. Relief of Charles Cooper and others. [§ 66.] 

H. R. ijgj, 2 sess. 41 Cong. " An act for the relief of Charles Cooper, Goshorn A. 
Jones, Jerome Rowley, William Hannegan, and John Hannegan." 

1870. Mar. I to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 11 to June 13, in the Senate. 

1871. Jan. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 392, 596 P, 987, 1072, 1 107, 1108, II 12. 

Seftate Journal, 2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 479, 482, 739, 794 P, 911, 912. House Jour- 
nal, 3 sess. 41 Cong. pp. loi O, io8. 

77. Relief of naval contractors. [§ 66.] 

S. R. g2, 2 sess. 41 Cong. " A resolution for the relief of certain contractors for the 
construction of vessels of war and steam machinery." 
1870. Jan. 10 to July 8, in the Senate. July 9 to 1871, Jan. 30, in the House. 



156 List of Vetoes. [App, A 

1 87 1. Feb. 7, vetoed. Feb. 16, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 30-20. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 76, 136, 141, 640, looi P. House Journal, 

2 sess. 41 Cong. pp. 11 87, 1293. Senate Jourtial, j sess. 41 Cong. pp. 192, 196, 

212, 236 O, 237, 299 R. House Journal, s sess. 41 Cong. pp. 238 P, 248. 

* 78. Relief of estate of Dr. John P. Hanks. [§ 69.] 

H. R. 1350, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the reHef of the estate of Dr. John F. Hanks." 

1872. Feb. 16, in the House. Feb. 19 to Mar. 14, in the Senate. 

Apr. I, vetoed. 1873, Jan. 18, reconsidered by the House; passed over the 

veto, 126 to 17. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 354 P, 503, 513, 603 O. Senate Journal, 

2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 255, 376 P, 384. House Journal, 3 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 202 R, 

203. Senate Journal, 3 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 179, 182 R. 

79. Relief of J. T. Johnson. [§ 69.] 

H. R. 1867, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the rehef of James T. Johnson." 

1872. Mar. 8, in the House. Mar. 8 to Mar. 19, in the Senate. 

Apr. I, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 470 P, 537, 549, 599, 616, 649 O. Senate 

Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 349, 367, 396 P, 410. 

80. Relief of children of J. "W. Baker. [§ 66.] 

H. R. 2041, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the rehef of the children of John W. Baker, 
deceased." 

1872. Mar. 19, in the House. Mar. 20 to Mar. 28, in the Senate. 

Apr. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 537 P, 602, 618, 639, 681 O. Senate Journal, 

2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 402, 403, 453 P, 478. 

81. Pension to Abigail Ryan. [§ 72.] 

S. 803, 2 sess. 42 Cotig. " An act granting a pension to Abigail Ryan." 
1872. Mar. 14, in the Senate. Mar. 14 to Apr. 4, in the House. 
Apr. 15, vetoed. 

:ienate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 377 P, 494, 501, 514, 546 O, 819. House 

Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 504, 513, 629 P, 640. 

82. Pension to R. B. Crawford. [§ 72.] 

H. R. 622, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Richard B. Crawford." 

1 87 1. Dec. 15, in the House. Dec. 18 to 1872, Mar. 22, in the Senate. 

1872. ApB. 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cotig. pp. 74 P, 557, 618, 632, 663, 665, 685, 722, 728 O. 
Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 54, 413 P, 477, 484, 527, 528, 543. 

** 83. Pension to M. A. Montgomery. [§ 72.] 

.S". 95J, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Montgomery." 

1872. Apr. II, in the Senate. Apr. 11 to Apr. 24, in the House. 

May 14, vetoed. May 17, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

44 to I. June 7, by the House; passed over the veto, loi to 44. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 536 P, 604, 606, 691, 710, 712, 736 O, 772 R, 
981. House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 671, 727, 748 P, 831, 835, 887, 1060 R. 

84. Relief of J, M. Best. [§ 70.J 

.S". /05, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the relief of J. Milton Best." 
1871. Dec. 14 to 1872, Apr. 8, in the Senate. 1872, Apr. 9 to May 18, in the House. 



1871-1873] Grant's Administration. 157 

1872. June I, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 47, 509 P, 787, 792, 796, 927 O, 928, 929. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 4^ Cong. pp. 660, 809, 893, 894 P, 914. 

85. ReUef of T. B. Wallace. [§ 70.] 

5^. 569, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the relief of Thomas B. Wallace, of Lexington, 
in the State of Missouri." 

1872. Feb. I to May 13, in the Senate. May 13 to May 24, in the House. 

June 7, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 184, 525, 618, 726 P, 840, 846, 849, 864, 985 Of 
986. House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 856, 859, 958, 975 P, 986. 

86. Relief of Edmund Jussen. [§66.] 

H. JR. 22gj, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the relief of Edmund Jussen." 

1872. Apr. 15 to May 18, in the House. -May 20 to Dec. 11, in the Senate. 

1873. Jan. 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 691, 893 P. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. 

pp. 790, 792. House Journal, 3 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 63, 130 O. Senate Journal, 

S sess. 42 Cong. pp. 53 P, 67. 

87. New trials in Court of Claims. [§ 15.] 

H. R. 630, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act in relation to new trials in the Court of Claims." 

1871. Dec. 18 to 1872, May 14, in the Honse. 1872, May 15 to 1873, Jan. 9, in 

the Senate. 
1873. Jan. 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 80, 865 P. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. 

pp. 749, 754, 816. House Journal, 3 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 144, 149, 229 O. Senate 

Journal, 3 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 124 P, 131. 

88. Relief of East Tennessee University. [§ 70.] 

S. 4go, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the relief of the East Tennessee University." 

1872. Jan. 17 to Apr. 9, in the Senate. Apr. 10 to 1873, Jan. 18, in the House. 

^873. Jan. 29, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 121, 122, 518 P. House Journal, 2 sess. 

42 Cong. pp. 665, 837. Senate Journal, j sess. 42 Cong. pp. 174, 179, 185, 251 O, 

252, 262. House Journal, j sess. 42 Cottg. pp. 200 P, 219. 

89. Relief of James A. McCullah. [§ 66.] 

H JR. 28^2, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the relief of James A. McCullah, late col- 
lector of the fifth district of Missouri." 

1872. May 20, in the House. May 20 to 1873, Jan. 24, in the Senate. 

1873. Feb. 8, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cofig. p. 915 P. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. p. 794. 

— ' — House Journal, 3 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 240, 262, 362 O. Senate Journal, j sess. 

42 Cong. pp. 143, 211 P, 216, 222. 

90. Relief for owners of salt works destroyed by war. [§ 70,] 

.S". 161, 2 sess. 42 Cong. " An act for the relief of those suffering from the destruction 
of salt works near Manchester, Kentucky." 

1872. Feb. 23 to Apr. 8, in the Senate. 1873, Jan. 18, in the House. 

1873. Feb. II, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 42 Cong. pp. 274, 511 P. Senate Journal, 3 sess. 42 Cong. 

pp. 174, 179, 185, 228, 234, 331 O, 332, 334. House Journal, 3 sess. 4a Cong. pp. 

200 P, 201, 219, 268. 



158 List of Vetoes. [Apr. A 

91. Relief of W. H. Denniston. [§ 70.] 

H. R. 1224, J sess. 4j Cong. " An act for the relief of William H. Denniston, late an 
acting second lieutenant, Seventieth New York Volunteers." 

1874. Jan. 16, in the House. Jan. 19 to Mar. 27, in the Senate. 

Apr. IP, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 43 Cong. pp. 247, 250 P, 675, 688, 785, 798, 799 O. Sen- 
ate Journal, i sess. 43 Cong. pp. 158, 159, 259, 389 P, 4CX), 405, 462. 

92. Inflation of currency. [§§ 61, 126.] 

S. bij, I sess. 4j Cong. " An act to fix the amount of United States notes and the 
circulation of national banks, and for other purposes." 

1874. Mar. 23 to Apr. 6, in the Senate. Apr. 7 to Apr. 14, in the House. 

Apr. 22, vetoed. Apr. 28, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 34-30. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 43 Cong. pp. 369, 376, 379, 383, 384, 390, 395, 396, 397, 398, 
401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 408, 409, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 420, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 

432, 433, 434 P, 464, 466, 467, 485 O, 504, 505 R, 510. House Journal, i sess. 

43 Cong. pp. 734, 745, 800, 801 P, 810. 

93. Relief of Spencer and Mead. [§ 66.] 

H. R. 133 1, I sess: 43 Cong. " An act for the relief of Jacob Spencer and James R. 
Mead for supplies furnished the Kansas tribe of Indians." 

1874. Jan. 19 to Feb. 27, in tlie House. Mar. 2 to Apr. 29 in the Senate. 

May 12, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 43 Cong. pp. 260, 415, 526, 528 P, 848, 880, 885, 918, 962, 
965 O. Senate Journal, i sess. 43 Cong. pp. 307, 308, 338, 508 P, 519, 563. 

94. Relief of A. Burtch. [§ 67.] 

H R. 4462, 2 sess. 43 Cong. " An act for the relief of Alexander Burtch." 

1875. Jan. 22, in the House. Jan. 22 to Jan. 25, in the Senate. 

Jan. 30, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 43 Cong. pp. 234 P, 249, 259, 270, 380 O, 386 O. Senate 

Journal, 2 sess. 43 Ce7ig. pp. 151, 158 P, 168. 

95. Pension to Lew^is Hinely. [§ 72.] 

H. R. 23^2, J sess. 43 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Lewis Hinely." 

1874. Mar. 6 to Apr. 3, in the House. Apr. 6 to 1875, -^^^- 3' ^"^ ^^^ Senate. 

1875. Feb. 12, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 43 Cong. pp. 571, 712, 713 P. Setiate Journal, i sess. 

43 Cong. pp. 426, 437. House Journal, 2 sess. 43 Cong. pp. 387, 395, 437, 448, 

476 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 43 Cotig. pp. 156, 199 P, 210, 221. 

96. Custody of Indian trust funds. [§ 41.] 

//. R. i^bi, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act transferring the custody of certain Indian trust 
funds from the Secretary of the Interior to the Treasurer of the United States." 

1876. Jan. 25, in the House. Jan. 25 to Jan. 26, in the Senate. 

Feb. 3, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 264, 265 P, 275, 278, 330 O. Senate Jour- 
nal, J sess. 44 Cong. pp. 137, 143 P, 146, 150. 

97. Relief of James A. Hill. [§ 67.] 

H. R. 83, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act for the relief of James A. Hill, of Lewis County, 
Missouri." 

1875. Dec. 14 to 1876, Feb. 4, in the House. 1876, Feb. 7 to Mar. 14, in the Senate, 

1876. Mar. 27, vetoed. 



1874-1876] Grant's Administration. 159 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 45, 283, 336 P, 589, 597, 675 O, 692. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 175, 176, 277, 308 P, 324. 

' ** 98. ReUef of G. B. Tyler and E. H. Luckett. [§ 66.] 

S. 48g, J sess. 44 Cong. "An act for the relief of G. B. Tyler and E. H. Luckett, 
assignees of William T. Cheatham." 

1876. Feb. 24, in the Senate. Feb. 25 to Mar. 17, in the House. 

Mar. 31, vetoed. May 20, reconsidered by the Senate ; passed over the veto, 

46 to o. May 26, by the House; passed over the veto, 181 to 14. 

Senale Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 231 P, 322, 329, 331, 343, 390 O, 391, 392, 440, 

516 R, 533. House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 462, 483, 606 P, 627, 991, 993, 

1014 R. 

99., Reduction of President's salary. [§ 33.] 

S. 172, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act fixing the salary of the President of the United 
States." 

1876. Jan. 6 to Mar. 14, in the Senate. Apr. 3 to Apr. 6, in the House. 

Apr. 18, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 76, 243, 309 P, 379, 400, 403, 410, 425, 438 O, 
524. House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 733, 743, 754 P, 760. 

100. Recording in the District of Columbia. [§ 15.] 

H. R. ig22, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act providing for the recording of deeds, mortgages, 
and other conveyances affecting real estate in the District of Columbia." 

1876. Feb. 7 to Mar. 20, in the House. Mar. 21 to Apr. 13, in the Senate. 

May 26, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 349, 623 P, 804, 816, 957, 962, loii O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 329, 331, 412, 426, 427 P, 504, 507, 508. 

101. Relief of M. W. Brock. [§ 66.] 

S. 16^, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act for the relief of Michael W. Brock of Meigs County, 
Tennessee, late a private in Company D, Tenth Tennessee Volunteers." 

1876. Jan. 5 to Feb. 14, in the Senate. Feb. 15 to May 26, in the House. 

June 9, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 73, 182, 196 P, 197, 533, 546, 549, 557, 584 O, 
585, 606. -House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 399, 444, 843, 1017 P, 1045. 

102. Internal improvements (appropriations for salaries). [§ 91.] 
S.6g2, I sess. 44 Cong. "An act to amend chapter one hundred and sixty-six of the 

laws of the second session of the Forty-third Congress." 

•4 1876. Apr. 3, in the Senate. Apr. 4 to June 10, in the House. 

June 30, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 378 P, 582, 593, 595, 614, 665 O, 666, 667. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 743, 749, 1087 P, 1 1 17. 

** 103. Relief of Nelson Tiffany. [§ 67.] 

H. R. 1337, I sess. 44 Cong. " K\\ act for the relief of Nelson Tiffany." 

1876. Jan. 18 to Apr. 29, in the House. May i to June 29, in the Senate. 

July II, vetoed. July 28, reconsidered by tlie Flouse; passed over the veto, 

178 to I. July 31, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 40 to o. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 221, S89 P, 1 186, 1195, 1225, 1254 O, 1311, 

1314, 1340, 1345 R, 1361. Senate Jourjial, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 473, 474, 597, 

649 P, 653, 657, 763, 768 R, 769. 



i6o List of 'Vetoes. [App. A 

104. Pension to E. J. Blumer. [§ 72.] 

H. R. II, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Eliza Jane Blumer." 

1875. Dec. 14 to 1876, Mar. 3, in the House. 1876, Mar. 6 to June 29, in the 

Senate. 

1876. July 13, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 39, 460, 508, 509 P, 1185, 1 195, 1224, 1263 O. 
Senate "jfourtial, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 275, 281, 398, 645 P, 653, 657. 

105. Post-office statutes. [§ 98.] 

H. R. 26S4, I sess. 44 Cong. "An act to amend sections 3946, 3951, and 3954 of the 
Revised Statutes." 

1876. Mar. 15 to June 8, in the House. June 9 to July 5, in the Senate. 

July 20, vetoed. 

House you7-nal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 595, 1068 P, 1213, 1260, 1270, 1275, 1308 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 577, 581, 641, 677 P, 701, 709, 712. 

106. Restoration of Capt. E. S. Meyer. [§ 68.] 

//. R. 36, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act to restore the name of Edvi^ard S. Meyer to the 
active list of the Army." 

1875. Dec. 14 to 1876, July 12, in the House. 1876, July 13 to July 28, in the Senate. 

1876. Aug. 14, vetoed. 

ffotise Jotirfzal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 41, 1255 P, 1343, 1362, 1368, 1370, 1498O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 703, 708, 761 P, 776, 777. 

107. Paving Pennsylvania Avenue. [§ 45.] 

H. R. 408^, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act to repeal section five of ' An act authorizing the 
repavement of Pennsylvania Avenue,' approved July 19, 1876." 

'^1876. Aug. 8, in the House. Aug. 8 to Aug. 14, in the Senate. 

Aug. 15, vetoed. 

House Journal, I sess. 44 Cong. pp. 1405 P, 1478, 1481, 1499 O, I5I7- Senate 

Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 808, 814, 817, 868 P, 869, 872, 874. 

** 108. Sale of Indian lands. [§ 41.] 

S. Tjg, I sess. 44 Cong. "An act to provide for the sale of a portion of the reservation 
of the Confederated Otoe and Missouria, and the Sacs and Foxes of the Missouri tribes 
of Indians in the States of Kansas and Nebraska," 

1876. Apr. 26 to June I, in the Senate. June i to July 12, in the House. 

Aug. 15, vetoed. Aug. 15, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

36 to o. Aug. 15, by the House; passed over the veto, 120 to 18. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 460, 542 P, 703, 704, 717, 808, 81 1, 819, 829, 

864, S83 O, 885 R, 892, 893. Hozise Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 1042, 1048, 

1254 P. 1270, 1281, 1310, 1312, 1404, 1413, 1425, 1511 R. 

109. Relief of Major J. T. Turner. [§§ 70, 108.] 

.S. §61, I sess. 44 Cong. "An act for the relief of Major Junius T. Turner." 

1876. Mar. 6 to Mar. 15, in the Senate. Mar. 15 to Aug. 10, in the House. 

Aug. 15, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 277, 312 P, 816, 827, 829, 864, 885 O, 886. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 595, 598, 1424 P, 1438, 1515. Senate Journal, 

2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 103, 232. 

110. Homestead entries. [§ 48.] 

H. R. 2041, I sess. 44 Cong. "An act to amend section 2291 of the Revised Statutes 
of the United States, in relation to proof required in homestead entries." 



1876-1877] Grant's Administration. 161 

1876. Feb. 14 to Mar. 7, in the House. Mar. 8 to Aug. 9, in the Senate. 

1877; Jan. 15, vetoed. 

House yournal, i sess. 44. Cong. pp. 387, 526 P, 1413. Senate yournal, i sess. 

44 Cong. pp. 288, 290, 480, 810 P. House Journal, 2 sess. 44. Cong. pp. 156, 159, 

164, 200, 249 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 81, 85. 

* 111. District of Columbia police. [§ 45.] 

H. R. 43SO, 2 sess. 44 Cong. " An act to abolish the Board of Commissioners of the 
Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia, and to transfer its duties to the Com- 
missioners of the District of Columbia." 

1877. Jan. 8, in the House. Jan. 8 to Jan. 9, in the Senate. 

Jan. 23, vetoed. Jan. 30, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

159 to 78. Feb. 6, by the Senate; vote, 33-22. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 177 P, 187, 195, 216, 326 O, R, 396. Senate 

Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 87, 92 P, 95, 96, 178, 179, 197, 205 R. 

112. Diplomatic congratulations. [§ 24.] 

H. Res. iji and jy2, 2 sess. 44 Cong. " Joint resolution relating to congratulations 
from the Argentine Republic," and " Joint resolution in reference to congratulations from 
the Republic of Pretoria, South Africa." 

1876. Dec. 15, in the House. Dec. 15 to 1877, Jan. 11, in the Senate. 

1877. Jan. 26, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 82 P, 206, 218, 241, 328 O. Senate Journal, 

2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 52, 98 P, 108. 

113. Muster of D. H. Kelly. [§ 69.] 

.S". 68 J, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act to place the name of Daniel H. Kelly upon the 
muster roll of Company F, Second Tennessee Infantry." 

1876. Apr. 3 to June 8, in the Senate. June 8 to 1877, Jan. 16, in the House. 

1877. Jan. 26, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 377, 575 P. House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. 

pp. 1070, 1092. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. II4, 137, 138, 151, 158 O, 159. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 238 P, 255. 

114. Desertion of Alfred Ro-wrland. [§ 67.] 

H. R. 3367, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act to remove the charge of desertion from the 
military record of Alfred Rowland." 

1876. May 4 to June 30, in the House. July i to 1877, Jan. 30, in the Senate. 

l8''7. F«b. 14, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 915, 1191 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. 

pp. 661, 667. House Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 340, 358, 382, 438 O. — — Senate 

Journal, 2 sess, 44 Cong. pp. no, 172, 173 P, 190. 

115. Advertising of Executive Departments. [§ 21.] 

H. R. 3r§6, I sess. 44 Cong. " An act to perfect the revision of the Statutes of the 
United States." 

1876. Apr. 19 to June I, in the House. June 2 to 1877, Jan. 12, in the Senate. 

1877. Feb. 14, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 823, 933, 1003, 1037, 1039 P. Senate Jour- 
nal, I sess. 44 Cong. pp. 546, 550. House Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 233, 235, 

269, 292, 294, 340, 346, 363, 382, 451 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 92, 

96, 99, 102 P, 149, 151, 170, 193, 194. 



1 62 List of Vetoes. [App. a. 

116. Relief of Edward A. Leland. [§ 70.] 

S. 6gi, I sess, 44 Cong. " An act for the relief of Edward A. Leland." 

1876. Apr. 3 to Aug. 15, in the Senate. Aug. 15 to 1877, Feb. 16, in the House. 

1877. Feb. 28, vetoed. 

Senate yournal, i sess. 44 Cong. pp. 378, 692, 881 P. House Journal, i sess. 

44 Cong. p. 1509. Senate yournal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 256, 307, 340, 366 O, 367,, 

368. House Journal, 2 sess. 44 Cong. pp. 157, 460 P, 517. 

PRESIDENT HAYES (1877-1881). -[12 VETOES.] 

** 117. Standard silver dollar. [§§ 62, 129.] 

H. R. Jogs, I sess. 45 Cong. " An act to authorize the coinage of the silver dollar 
and to restore its legal tender character." 

1877. Nov. 5, in the House. Nov. 6 to 1878, Feb. 15, in the Senate. 

1878. Feb. 28, vetoed. Feb. 28, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

196 to 73. Feb. 28, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 46 to 19. 

House Journal, i sess. 4^ Cong. p. 144 P. Senate Journal, . i sess. 4^ Cong, 

pp. 46, 78. House Jour7ial, 2 sess. 4^ Cong. pp. 458, 468, 485, 517, 546 O, 550 R, 

555. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4^ Co7tg. pp. 31, 130, 136, 140, 141, 142, 145, 148, 

156, 165, 169, 172, 176, 182, 187, 188, 193, 196, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 
208, 209 P, 231, 250, 252 R. 

118. Special term of courts in Mississippi. [§ 15.] 

H. R. J072, 2 sess. 4J Cong. "An act to authorize a special term of the Circuit Court 
of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi, to be held at Scranton, in 
Jackson County." 

1878. Feb. 5, in the House. Feb. 6 to Feb. 28, in the Senate. 

Mar. 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 4^ Cong. pp. 368, 369 P, 555, 563, 585, 600 O. Senate 

Journal, 2 sess. 4^ Cong. pp. 168, 169, 185, 246, 249, 250, 252 P, 253, 260. 

119. Restricting Chinese immigration. [§§ 43, 126.] 

H. R. 2422, 2 sess. 4j Cong. " An act to restrict the immigration of Chinese to the 
United States." 

1878. Jan. 14 to 1879, Jan. 28, in the House. 1S79, Jan. 29 to Feb. 15, in the 

Senate. 

1879. Mar. I, vetoed. Mar. i, reconsidered by the House; vote, 110-96. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 4^ Cong. p. 190. House Journal, j sess. 4J Cong. pp. 170, 

297, 298 P, 456, 500, 517, 535, 603 O, 608, 609 R, 610. Senate Journal, 3 sess. 

45 Cong- pp. 184, 185, 232, 266, 271, 276, 282, 283, 284, 285 P, 353, 355. 

120. Army appropriations. [§ 35.] 

H. R. I, I sess. 46 Cong. " An act making appropriation for the support of the Army, 
for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty, and for other 
purposes." 

1879. Mar. 27 to Apr. 5, in the House. Apr. 7 to Apr. 25, in the Senate. 

Apr. 29, vetoed. May 1, reconsidered by the House; vote, 121-110. 

House Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 P, 

198, 208 O, 221 R, 222. Senate Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 67, 68, 74, 75, 76, 77, 

79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106 P, 107. 

121. Interference at elections. [§ 34.] 

H. R. JjS2, I sess. 46 Cong. "An act to prohibit military interference at elections." 



1877-1880] Grant's and Hayes s Administrations. 163 

1879. May 5 to May 6, in the House. May 6 to May 9, in the Senate. 

1879. May 12, vetoed. May 13, reconsidered by the House; vote, 128-97. 

House Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 232, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263 P, 277, 278, 291 O, 

295, 297, 298 R, 481, 539. Senate Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 125, 127, 131, 133, 

135, 136 P, 138. 

122. Civil appropriations. [§ 35.] 

H. R. 2, 1 sess. 46 Coftg. " An act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, 
and judicial expenses of the government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eigh- 
teen hundred and eighty, and for other purposes." 

1879. Apr. I to Apr. 26, in the House. Apr. 28 to May 20, in the Senate. 

May 29, vetoed. May 29, reconsidered by the House; vote, 114-93. 

, House Journal, z sess. 46 Cong. pp. 35, 49, 58, 59, 66, 82, 88, 92, 93, 94, 98, 106, 

176, 186, 187, 192, 194, 195, 198, 200 P, 202, 341, 360, 389, 404, 410 O, 414 R, 415. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. iii, 123, 137, 138, 140, 142, 145, 147, 149, 150, 
151, 152, 153, 154, 15s, 156, 157 P, 158, 165. 

123. Payment of marshals. [§ 35.] 

H. J?. 22J2, J sess. 46 Cong. " An act making appropriations for certain judicial 
expenses." 

1879. June 9 to June 10, in the House. June 11 to June 16, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. June 23, reconsidered by the House; vote, 102-78. 

House Journal, i sess. 46 Cong pp. 469, 474, 475 P, 514, 518, 526, 527, 528, 529, 

540, 549 O, 553 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 199, 200, 20 1, 208, 211, 

212, 216 P, 223, 224, 225, 241, 249, 250, 251. 

124. Relief of Major Collins. [§ 69.] 

S. J9J-, I sess. 46 Cong. " An act to amend an act for the relief of Joseph C. Collins, 
approved March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine." 

1879. May 14 to May 27, in the Senate. May 28 to June 12, in the House. 

June 27, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 144, 168 P, 204, 2IO, 222, 274 O, 275. House 

Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 406, 487, 488 P, 505. 

125. Payment of marshals. [§ 35.] 

H. R. 2382, I sess. 46 Cong. " An act making appropriations to pay fees of United 
States marshals and their general deputies." 

1879. June 26 to June 27, in the House. June 27 to June 28, in the Senate. 

June 30, vetoed. June 30, reconsidered by the House; vote, 85-63. 

Hotise Journal, i sess.- 46 Cong. pp. 567, 574, 575 P, 585, 588, 591 O, 592 R, 594. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 46 Cong. pp. 271, 275, 278 P, 279, 280. 

126. Payment of marshals. [§ 35.] 

H. R. 4^24, 2 sess. 46 Cong. " An act making appropriations to supply certain de- 
ficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the government for the fiscal year end- 
ing June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty, and for other purposes." 

1880. Mar. 12 to Mar. 19, in the House. Mar. 22 to Apr. i, in the Senate. 

May 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 46 Cong. pp. 769, 770, 798, 803, 809, 816, 820 P, 935, 937, 

957, 1047, 1048, 1064, 1075, 1088, 1089, 1095, 1117, 1143, Ii54> 117O) II74 0- 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 46 Cong. pp. 360, 361, 377, 384, 389, 390, 395 P, 473, 477, 478, 
483. 492, 494, 495. 504, 505- 



164 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

127. Payment of marshals. ^ [§§ 34, 112.] 

S. 1726, 2 sess. 4.6 Cong, "An act regulating the pay and appointment of deputy 
marshals." 

1880. May 6 to May 21, in the Senate. May 21 to , in the House. 

June 15, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 46 Cong. pp. 519, 558, 573, 574, 575, 576, 585, 587 P, 588, 

589, 724, 737, 742, 745, 748, 759. House Journal, 2 sess. 46 Cong. pp. 1304, 1403, 

1451, 1460, i486, 1491. 

128. Refunding the national debt. [§ 59.] 

H. R. 4jg2, 2 sess. 46 Cong. "An act to facilitate the refunding of the national 
debt." 

1880. Feb. 18 to 1 88 1, Jan. 19, in the House. 1881, Jan. 20 to Feb. 18, in the 

Senate. 

1881. Mar. 3, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 46 Cong. pp. 520, 680, 822, 1277, 1278. House Journal, 

3 sess. 46 Cong. pp. 37, 68, 71, 84, 114, 118, 129, 139, 164, 169, 179, 180, 199, 200, 201, 

204, 212 P, 446, 558, 560, 569, 580, 585 O. Senate Journal, j sess. 46 Cong. pp. 142, 

143, 204, 256, 261, 267, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 281, 282, 283 P, 367, 369. 

PRESIDENT ARTHUR (1881-1885). -[4 VETOES.] 

129. Chinese iiximigration. [§ 43.] 

S. 7/, / sess. 4y Cong. " An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to 
Chinese." 

1881. Dec. 5 to 1882, Mar. 9, in the Senate. 1882, Mar. 10 to Mar. 23, in the 

House. 

1882. Apr. 4, vetoed. Apr. 5, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 29-21. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 47 Cong. pp. 35, 222, 357, 363, 367, 373, 381, 385, 390, 395, 

396, 397 P> 466, 473. 477. 526 O, 527-534, 540, 541 R. House Journal, i sess. 

47 Cong. pp. 783, 784, 816, 824, 845, 849, 881, 882, 883, 886, 887, 888, 889 P, 890, 900. 

130. Passengers by sea. [§ 82.] 

H. H. 2744, I sess. 47 Cong. " An act to regulate the carriage of passengers by sea.'^ 

1882. Jan. 9 to Apr. 18, in the House. Apr. 19 to June 19, in the Senate. 

July I, vetoed. 

Hotise Journal, i sess. 47 Cong. pp. 241, 1065 P, 1502, 1518, 1525, 1575 O, 1804. 
— — Senate Jourtial, i sess. 47 Cong. pp. 602, 802, 845 P, 859. 

** 131. Rivers and harbors. [§ 92.] 

H. R. 6242, I sess. 47 Cong. " An act making appropriations for the construction, 
repair, and preservation of certain works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes." 

1882. June I to June 17, in the House. June 19 to July 12, in the Senate. 

Aug. I, vetoed. Aug. 2, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto,, 

122 to 59. Aug. 2, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 41 to 16. • 

House Journal, i sess. 47 Cong. pp. 1389, 1422, 1477, 1479, 1484, 1489, 1490 P, 1491, 
1625, 1634, 1653, 1654, 1655, 1665, 1681, 1689, 1697, 1729, 1734, 1753, 1762, 1788 O, 

1792 R, i8o4,«i8o8. Senate Journal, i sess. 47 Cong. pp. 844, 916, 927, 928, 931, 

937. 938, 939. 946, 947. 951-953. 956, 957 P. 958. 939. 97^. 973. 980, 992, 993, 994, 
1016, 1023, 1028, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061 R. 

' For the text of the veto see Senate Miscellaneous Documents, No. 53, p. 438, 49 Cong, a sess. 



i8So-i886] Hayes's to Clevelatuf s Administration. 165 

* 132. Relief of Fitz-John Porter. [§§ 29, 68.] 

H. JR. lo/j, I sess. 48 Cong. " An act for the relief of Fitz-John Porter." 

1883. Dec. II to 1884, Feb. i, in the House. 1884, Feb. 4 to Mar. 13, in the Senate. 

1884. July 2, vetoed. July 2, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

168 to 78. — ■ — July 3, by the Senate; vote, 27-27. 
' House Journal, i sess. 48 Cong. pp. 97, 253, 310, 349, 350, 413, 414, 470, 471 P, 

822, 1207, 1222, 1462, 1466, 1481, 1638 O, 1640 R, 1648. Se7tate Journal, i sess. 

48 Cong. pp. 252, 254, 352, 420, 422, 423 P, 620, 622, 635, 771, 776, 778, 779, 792, 
798, 897, 899 R. 

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND ((885-1889).- [301 VETOES.] 

133. Relief of J. H. McBlair. [§ 66.] 

S. igj, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of John HoUins McBlair." 

1885. Dec. 8, to 1886, Jan. 13, in the Senate. 1886, Jan. 14 to Feb. 19, in the House. 

1886. Mar. 10, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 55, 161, 170 P, 322, 333, 342, 404 O, 406. 

Bouse Journal, i sess. 49 Cong. pp. 363, 370, 423, 633, 713 P, 740. 

* 134. Settlers' titles to Des Moines River lands. [§ 48.] 

.S". ijo, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to quiet the title of settlers on the Des Moines River 
lands in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes." 

1885. Dec. 8 to 1886, Feb. 1 1, in the Senate. 1886, Feb. 12 to Feb. 24, in the House. 

1886. Mar. II, vetoed. June 29, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

34 to 15. July I, by the House; vote, 161-93. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 53, 179, 280 P, 333, 335, 339, 367, 412 O, 415, 

1009, 1016 R, 1036. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 628, 640, 740 P, 754, 

2046, 2059 O, 2061 R, 2062, 2063. 

135. bodies for dissection. [§§ 45, 126.] 

S. 34g, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act for the promotion of anatomical science, and to 
prevent the desecration of graves." 

1885. Dec. 10 to 1886, Feb. 17, in the Senate. 1886, Feb. 18 to Apr. 12, in the House. 

1886. Apr. 26, vetoed. Apr. 30, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 6-48. 

Senate journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 72, 203, 246, 302 P, 554, 558, 559, 562, 632 O, 
634, 660 R. House Journal, i sess. 4g Coftg. pp. 701, 836, 1238 P, 1245. 

136. Omaha a port of delivery. [§ 98.] 

.S". 141, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to extend the provisions of the act of June tenth, 
eighteen hundred and eighty, entitled, ' An act to amend the statutes in relation to the 
mediate transportation of dutiable goods, and for other purposes,' to the port of 
Omaha, in the State of Nebraska." 

1885. Dec. 8 to 1886, Jan. 7, in the Senate. 1886, Jan. 1 1 to Apr. 15, in the House. 

1886. Apr. 30, vetoed. 

■ Sejiate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 53, 142 P, 566, 593, 618, 661 O, 662, 663. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 317, 350, 827, 1265 P, 1316. 

137. Pension to Abigail Smith. [§ 72.] 

//. A . J0/9, / sess. 4g Cong. " An act to increase the pension of Abigail Smith." 

1886. Jan. 7 to Feb. 12, in the House. Feb. 15 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. 

May 8, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 297, 561, 635, 636 P, 1340, 1371, 1547 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 287, 565, 601 P, 623, 627. 



1 66 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

138. Pension to Andrew J. Hill. [§ 73.] 

H. R. 1 47 1, I sess. 4q Cong. " An act increasing the pension of Andrew J. Hill." 

1886. Jan. 5 to Feb. 12, in the House. Feb. 15 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. 

May 8, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 215, 553, 635, 636 P, 1339, 1370, 1548 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 287, 499, 599 P, 623, 626. 

139. Springfield a port of delivery. [§ 82.] 

S. 13^7, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to establish a port of delivery at Springfield, in the 
State of Massachusetts." 

1886. Feb. 5 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to Apr. 28, in the House, 

May 17, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 251, 278, 609 P, 647, 669, 685, 743 O, 744. 
House Jour7tal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1330, 1352, 1406, 1423 P, 1440. 

140. Pension to Louis Melcher. [§ 74.] 

S. 21S6, J sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Louis Melcher." 

1886. Apr. 20 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 7, in the House. 

May 24, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Co?tg. pp. 581, 603 P, 702, 716, 732, 784 O, 785, 822, 

1080, I13S. Hotise Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1338, 1355, 1448, 1540, 1543 P, 

1589. 

141. Pension to Edward Ayres. [§ 74.] 

S. 363, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Edvi^ard Ayres." 

1885. Dec. 10 to 1886, Apr. 21, in the Senate. 1886, Apr. 22 to May 7, in the House. 

1886. May 24, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 72, 582, 603 P, 701, 716, 717, 731, 787 O, 788, 

823, loSo, 1 138. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1335, 1352, 1447, 1540, 1543 P, 

1588. 

142. Pension to J. C. Chandler. [§ 74.] 

S. i6jo, I sess. 4g Cotig. " An act granting a pension to James C. Chandler." 

l886. Feb. 24 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 7, in the House. 

May 24, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 331, 519, 597 P, 702, 716, 717, 732, 786 O, 787, 

823, 1080, 1 1 90. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1354. 1447, 1540, 

1543 P, 1588. 

143. Pension to D. B. Branch. [§ 74.] 

S. Sjj, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Dudley B. Branch." 

1886. Jan. 5 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 7, in the House. , 

May 24, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 130, 518, 597 P, 701, 716, 717, 731, 783 O, 

784, loSo, 1 190. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1335, 1353, 1447. i_540, 

1543 P, 1588. 

144. Pension to J. D. Ham. [§ 74.] 

.S". iggS, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of John D. Ham." 

1886. Mar. 29 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 7, in the House. 

May 25, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 487, 490, 595 P, 702, 716, 717, 732, 805 O, 806, 
1080, 1 138. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1355, ^448. 154O) 1543 P> 



i886] Cleveland' s Administration. 167 

145. Pension to D. "W. Hamilton. [§ 74.] 

.S". J2gOy I sess. ^g Cong: " An act granting a pension to David W. Hamilton." 

1886. Jan. 29 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 7, in the House. 

May 25, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 224, 565, 603 P, 701, 716, 717, 732, 803 O, 805, 
1080, I13S. — —House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1336, 1354, 1447, 1540, 1543 P, 
1588. 

146. Pension to Mrs. A. C. Owen. [§ 74.] 

S. i8jo, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Annie C. Owfen." 

1886. Mar. II to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 14, in the House. 

May 28, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 411, 552, 603 P, 741, 760, 761, 768, 823 O, 824, 
1 184. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1536, 1610, 161 1 P, 1653. 

147. Pension to J. D. Haworth. [§ 74.] 

S. 12^3, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to J. D. Haworth." 

1886. Jan. 27 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 14, in the House. 

May 28, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 213, 583, 604 P, 741, 760, 761, 768, 824 O, 825, 

1080, 1138. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1336, 1353, 1535, l6lo, 1611 P, 

1653. 

148. Pension to Mrs. R. Eldridge. [§ 74.] 

H. J\. 214^, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the rehef of Rebecca Eldridge." 

1886. Jan. 6 to Feb. 12, in the House. Feb. 15 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. 

May 28, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 254, 567, 634, 636 P, 1338, 1351, 1410, 1541, 

1542, 1607, 1747 O. Senate Jotirnal, i sess. 4g Co7ig. pp. 287, 288, 565, 605 P, 

702, 742. 

149. Pension to Mrs. E. C. Bangham. [§ 74.] 

H. E. 1J82, J sess. 4g Cong. "An act for the relief of Eleanor C. Bangham." 

1886. Jan. 5 to Jan. 29, in the House. Feb. i to Apr. 21, in the Senate. 

May 28, vetoed. 
" House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 221, 425, 506, 507 P, 1338, 1351, 1406, 1541, 

1542, 1607, 1747 O. Senate Journal sess. 4g Cong. pp. 229, 230, 479, 600 P, 

702, 742. ^ 

150. Pension to S. W. Harden. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 1406, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Simmons W. Harden." 

1886. Jan. 5 to Feb. 12, in the House. Feb. 15 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. 

May 28, vetoed. 

House Journal, I sess. 4g Cong. pp. 212, 567, 634, 636 P, 1338, 135 1, 1406, 1541, 

1542, 1607, 1748 O, 2147. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 287, 288, 498, 600 P, 

702, 742. 

151. Pension to M. Romahn. [§ 74.] 

S. J441, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to M. Romahn." 

1886. Feb. 9 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 14, in the House.' 

June I, vetoed. 

Senate Jotirnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 268, 560, 606 P, 741, 760, 761, 768, 833 O, 834, 
1080, 1 138. Hoitse Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1354, 1451, 1610, 1611 P, 1653. 



1 68 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

152. Pension to J. S. 'Williams. [§ 74.] 

S, y8g, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to John S. Williams." 

1885. Dec. 21 to 1886, Apr. 21, in the Senate. 1886, Apr. 22 to May 21, in the House, 

1886. June 2, vetoed. Aug. 4, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 19-15. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1 18, 491, 597 P, 782, 807, 808, 813, 845 O, 846, 

1080, 1 138, 1281 R. House Journal, I sess. 4q Cong. pp. 1335, 1353, 1449, 167S, 

1679 P, 1719. 

153. Pension to J. E. O'Shea. [§§ 74, 79.] 

S. g2y, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to James E. O'Shea." 

1885. Dec. 9 to 1886, Apr. 21, in the Senate. 1886, Apr. 22 to May 21, in the House. 

1886. June 2, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 67, 582, 603 P, 782, 807, 808, 813, 846 O, 847, 

1080, 1138. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1335, 1352, 1607, 1678, 1679 P, 

1719. 

154. Pension to A. F. Stevens. [§ 74.] 

S. i'j26, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Augustus Field Stevens." 

1886. Mar. 2 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 21, in the House. 

June 2, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 360, 583, 604 P, 782, 807, 808, 813, 847 O, 848, 
1080, H39. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1354, 1578, 1679 P, 1719. 

155. Pension to Mrs. M. D. Marohand. [§ 74.] 

S. 22b, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Margaret D. Marchand." 

1885. Dec. 9 to 1886, Mar. 19, in the Senate. 1886, Mar. 19 to May 28, in the House. 

1886. June 19, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 63, 358, 453 P, 830, 851, 852, 890, 954 O, 955, 

979, 1075, 1279. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 988, 1027, 1707, 1749, 1750 P, 

1793- 

* 156. Pension to T. S. Hopkins. [§ 76.] 

S. i8j, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of Thomas S. Hopkins, late of Com- 
pany C, Sixteenth Maine Volunteers." 

1885. Dec. 8 to 1886, Apr. 21, in the Senate. 1886, Apr. 22 to May 28, in the House. 

1886. June ig, vetoed. 1887, Feb. 23, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over 

the veto, 55 to 7. Mar. 3, by the House; vote, 153-95. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 54, 475, 595 P, 830, 851, 852, 890, 955 O, 956, 

979, I185. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1335, 1352, 1673, 1749, 1750 P, 1793. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. p. 414 R. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. 

pp. 726, 826 R. 

* 157. Public building at Sioux City. [§ 93.] 

.S". 765", I sess, 4g Cong. " An act for the erection of a public building at Sioux City, 
Iowa." 

1885. Dec. 21 to 1886, Feb. 9, in the Senate. 1886, Feb. 1 1 to June 5, in the House. 

1886. June 19, vetoed. 1887, Mar. 3, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the 

veto, 38 to 19. Mar. 3, by the House; vote, 109-72. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 117, 218, 271 P, 855, 856, 879, 887, 898, 959 O, 

960. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 615, 628, 885, 1799 P, 1820, 1837. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. p. 562 R. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong, 

pp. 842, 853 R. 



i886] Cleveland' s Administration. 169 

158. Public building at Zanesville. [§ 93.] 

S. 206, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to provide for the erection of a public building in 
the city of Zanesville, Ohio." 

1885. Dec. 8 to 1886, Feb. 9, in the Senate, 1886, Feb. 11 to Junes, ^^ •^^e House. 

1886. June 19, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 55, 246, 271 P, 855, 856, 879, 887, 898, 957 O, 
959. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 614, 627, 681, 1799 P, 1820, 1837. 

159. Pension to J. Hunter. [§ 74.] 

H. jggo, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to John Hunter." 

1886. Jan, 6 to Mar. 12, in the House. Mar. 15 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June 19, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 247, 814, 916, 917 P, 1725, 1756, 1856, 1955 O. 
Semtie Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 424, 425, 677, 810, 811 P, 831, 832. 

160. iPension to John Taylor. [§ 73.] 

H. A'. 3826, 1 sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of John Taylor." 

1886. Jan. II to Mar. 5, in the House. Mar. 8 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June 19, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 345, 743, 851, 852 P, 1725, 1756, 1856, 1953 0» 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 393, 396, 692, 811 P, 831, 832. 

161. Pension to C. W. Tiller. [§ 75.] 

H. R. 4002, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Carter W. Tiller," 

1886, Jan. 18 to Mar. 5, in the House,- Mar, 8 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June ig, vetoed. 1887, Feb. 2, reconsidered by the House; vote, 136-115. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 394, 742, 850, 851 P, 1725, 1756, 1856, 1953 O, 

2079, 2102, 2146, 2222, Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 393, 396, 692, Sll P,, 

831, 832.; House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 467, 468 R. 469, 470. 

162. Pension to Joel D. Monroe. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 40^8, J sess. 4g Cong. "An act for the relief of Joel D. Monroe," 

1886. Jan. 18 to Mar, 5, in the House, Mar, 8 to May 26, in the Senate, 

June 19, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 397, 742, 850, 851 P, 1725, 1756, 1856, 1953 O,, 
2397. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 393, 396, 678, 810, 811 P, 831, 832. 

163. Pension to F. J. Leese. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 3624, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Frederick J. Leese." 

1886. Jan. II to Mar. 19, in the House. Mar. 22 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June 21, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 337, 911, 991, 992 P, 1725, 1756, 1856, 1955 O. 
Sen lie Journal, j sess. 4g Cong. pp. 458, 459, 678, 810, 811 P, 831, 832. 

164. Pension to H. Hippie, Jr. [§ 74.] 

H. R. bSg'j, I sess. 4g Cojtg. "An act granting a pension to Henry Hippie, Jr." 

1886. Mar. 16 to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June 21, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 943, 11 72, 1206 P, 1726, 1756, 1856, 1954 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 678, 810, 811 P, 831, 832. 

165. Pension to John W. Farris. [§ 73.] 

H. R. 6136, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting an increase of pension to John W. 
Farris." 



170 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

1886. Mar. I to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June 21, vetoed. 1887, Feb. 22, reconsidered by the House; vote, 131-74. 

House Journal, I sess. 4g Cong, pp, 791, 11 70, 1206 P, 1726, 1756, 1954 O, 2225, 

2393, 2409. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 675, 810 P, 831, 832. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 682 R, 683. 

166. Pension to E. P. Hensley. [§ 74.] 

H. H. 170J, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Elijah P. Hensley." 

1886. Jan. 5 to Mar. 19, in the House. Mar. 22 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June 21, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 227, 846, 991, 992 P, 1725, 1756, 1856, 1955 O. 
— —Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 458, 459, 686, 810 P, 831, 832. 

167. Pension to Mrs. E. Luce. [§ 74.] 

H. R. sggy, / sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Luce." 

1886. Mar. I to Mar. 26, in the House. Mar. 29 to May 26, in the Senate. 

June 19, vetoed. July 26, reconsidered by the House; vote, 1 16-124. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 786, 962, 1066, 1067 P, 1726, 1756, 1856, 1956O, 
2163, 2222 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 488, 692, 811 P, 831, 832. 

168. Pension to Mrs. E. S. De Krafft. [§ 71.] 

.S". 223J, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Elizabeth S. De Krafft." 

1886. Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 28, in the House. 

June 21, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 591, 604 P, 830, 851, 852, 890, 952 O, 954, 979, 

1080, 1 1 38. House Journal, I sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1338, 1355, 1698, 1749, 1750 P, 

1793- 

169. Pension to Mrs. C. R. Schenck. [§ 74.] 

S. fjS4, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act for the relief of Cornelia R. Schenck." 

1886. Feb. 18 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to May 28, in the House. 

June 21, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 311, 582, 603 P, 830, 851, 852, 890, 956 O, 957, 

979, 1080, 1138. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1354, 1448, 1749, 

1750 P, 1793. 

170. Pension to Alfred Denny. [§ 74.] 

.S". iig2, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Alfred Denny." 

1886. Jan. 21 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 4, in the House. 

June 22, vetoed. 

Senate Jotirnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 197, 560, 605 P, 855, 879, 887, 898, 974 O, 975, 
1080, 113S. Hotise Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1336, 1353, 1451, 1797 P, 1837. 

171. Pension to W. H. Beck. [§ 74.] 

S. 1-/00, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to William H. Beck." 

1886. Feb. 5 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 4, in the House. 

June 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 251, 582, 603 P, 855, 879, SS7, 898, 976 O, 977, 
1080, 1 138. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1354, 1449, ^797 P> 1838. 

172. Pension to Mrs. M. J. Nottage. [§ 74.] 

S. 200j, J sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary J. Nottage." 

1886. Mar. 30 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 4, in the House. 

June 22, vetoed. Aug. 3, reconsidered by theSenate; vote, 26-19. 



i886] Cleveland' s Administration. 171 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 493, 539, 597 P, 855, S79, 887, 898, 973 O, 974, 

1023, 1080, 1127, 1211, 1264 R. House Journal, i sess. ^g Cong. pp. 1337, '355> 

1452, 1797 P, 1838. 

173. Pension to Mrs. M. Parsons. [§ 74.] 

S. 342, J sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Marrilla Parsons, of Detroit, 
Michigan." 

1885. Dec. 10 to 1886, Apr. 21, in the Senate. 1886, Apr. 22 to June 4, in the 

House. 

1886. June 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 72, 584, 604 P, 855, 879, 887, 898, 971 O, 
972, 1185. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1335, 1352, 1448, 1797 P, 1837. 

174. Pension to Mrs. H. Welch. [§ 74.] 

S. fjSj, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Harriet Welch." 

1886. Feb. 4 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 4, in the House. 

June 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 248, 491, 595 P, 855, 879, 887, 898, 975 O, 976,. 
1080, 113S. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1336, 1354, 1448, 1797 P, 1837. 

175. Pension to J. Butler. [§ 74.] 

3". 202J, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to James Butler." 

1886. Apr. I to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 4, in the House. 

June 22, vetoed. 

Senatt' Journal, i sess. 4g Coftg. pp. 505, 565, 603 P, 855, <S79, 887, 898, 972 O, 973, 
1080, 1138. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1355, 1451, 1797 P, 1838. 

176. Pension to Robert Holsey. [§ 74.] 

S. J 288, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Robert Holsey." 

1886. Jan. -29 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 4, in the House. 

June 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 224, 583, 604 P, 855, 879, 887, 898, 977 O, 978, 
1080, 1138. House Journal, j sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1336, 1354, 1449, 1797 P, 1837. 

177. Pension to wmiam Bishop. [§§ 74, 79.] 

H. R. 6688, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of William Bishop." 

1886. Mar. 16 to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to May 24, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 934, 1313, 1361, 1362 P, 1710, 1731, 2004 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 635, 636, 675, 793 P, 816, 817. 

178. Pension to J. Steward. [§ 71.] 

/7. li. 7g7g, i sess. 4g Cong. " Ax\ act granting a pensinn to Jackson Steward." 

1886. Apr. 19 to May 14, in the House. May 17 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House- Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1292, 1449, 1611, 1612 P, 1824, 1S46, 2005 O. 
-Senate Journal, j sess. 4g Cong. pp. 746, 796, 861 P, 891, 896. 

179. Pension to Mrs. M. A. Van Etten. [§§ 74, 79.] 

//. R. 6170, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary A. \'an Etten." 

1886. Mar. I to May 14, in tlie House. May 17 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 793, 1453, 1611, 1612 P, 1823, 1845, '997 O- 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 746, 829, 86r P, 891, 895. 



172 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

' 180. Pension to Mrs. A. E. Travers. [§ 74.] 

H. R, 67j'j, I sess. 4g Co7tg. " An act granting a pensi^Jn to Mrs. Alice E. Travers." 

1886. Mar. 16 to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

Blouse Jourtial, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 937, 1448, 1541, 1542 P, 1823, 1845, 1997 O. 
Stnate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 700, 759, 860 V, 891, 896. 

181. Pension to Philip Amer. [§ 74.] 

II. R. 6266, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Philip Amer." 

1886. Mar. I to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 797, I171, 1205, 1206 P, 1823, 1845, ^997 O* 
Senate Journal, j sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 760, 860 P, S91, 895. 

182. Pension to J. D. Cotton. [§ 75.] 

H. R. 6117, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to James D. Cotton," 

1886. Mar. I to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 791, 1261, 1361, 1362 P, 1823, 1845, ''998 O. 
• Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 635, 636, 715, 859 P, 891, 895. 

183. Pension to Mrs. M. A. Miller. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 1816, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Miller." 

1886. Jan. 6 to Mar. 12, in the House. Mar. 15 to May 24, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 240, 812, 917 P, 1710, 1731, 1998 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 424, 425, 675, 793 P, 816, 817. 

184. Pension to Mrs. M. Anderson. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 7436, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to grant a pension to Mary Anderson." 

1886. Mar. 29 to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. July 30, reconsidered by the House; vote, 120-95. 

House Jotirtial, i sess. 4g Co7ig. pp. 1086, 1448, 1541, 1542 P, 1S24, 1846, 1998 O, 
2328, 2390, 2409 R. Senate Journal, j sess. 4g Con^; pp. 700, 759, 860 P, 891, 896. 

185. Pension to D. T. Elderkin. [§ 74.] 

//. R. ^gg^, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to David T. Elderkin." 

1886. Mar. I to Mar. 26, in the House. Mar. 29 to May 24, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Jour7ial, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 786, 962, 1066, 1067 P, 1710, 1731, 1999 O, 
2225, 2409. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 488, 675, 793 P, 816, 817. 

186. Pension to G. W. Guyse. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 320^, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to George W. Guyse." 

1886. Jan. II to Feb. 19, in the House. Feb. 23 to May 24, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 319, 620, 715, 716 P, 1710, 1731, 2000 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 323, 324, 646, 793 P, 816, 817. 

187. Pension to S. Miller. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 7401, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Samuel Miller." 

1886. Mar. 29 to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 



i886] Cleveland' s Administration. 173 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1085, 1410, 1541, 1542 P, 1824, 1846, 2000 O. 

Senate Journal, / sess. ^9 Cong. pp. 700, 766, 86 1 P, 891, 896. 

188. Pension to G. C. Hawley. [§ 74] 

H. R. 424., I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to pension Giles C. Hawley." 

1885. Dec. 21 to 1886, Feb. 26, in the House. 1886, Mar. i to May 24, in the 

Senate. 

1886. June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 157, 553, 767 P, 1710, 1731, 2000 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 347, 675, 793 P, 816, 817. 

189. Pension to Charles Schuler. [§ 71.] 

H. J\. ysgS, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act for the relief of Charles Schuler." 

1886. Mar. 29 to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to May 24, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Jottrnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1080, 1261, 1361, 1362 P, 1710, 1731, 20OI O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 636, 675, 793 P, 816, Si 7. 

190. Pension to Mrs. M. S. "Woodson. [§ 74.] 

H. /i . yoyj, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary S. Woodson." 

1886. Mar. 22 to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Co7tg. pp. 1013, 1261, 1361, 1362 P, 1823, 1845, 200I O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 635, 636, 723, S59 P, 891, 896. 

191. Pension to A. J. Wilson. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 7108, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Andrew J. Wilson." 

1886. Mar. 22 to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. July 29, reconsidered by the House; vote, 106-86. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1015, 11 74, 1206 P, 1823, 1845, 2001 O, 2079, 
2392, 2400 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 707, 859 P, 891, 896. 

192. Pension to C. "West. [§ 74.] 

H. R. ^222, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Callie West." 

1886. Mar. 28 to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1077, 1361, 1362 P, 1824, 1845, 2002 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 636, 723, 859 P, 891, 896. 

193. Pension to Julia Connelly. [§ 74.] 

H. R. (>2^y, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief t>f Julia Connelly." 

1886. Mar. I to Apr. 2, in the House. Apr. 5 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, I sess. 4g Cong. pp. 797, 1033, 1132, 1133 P, 1823, 1845, 2002 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 512, 513, 796, 861 P, 891, 895. 

194. Pension to B. Schultz. [§ 71.] 

//. R. 6'/74, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Bruno Schultz." 

1886. Mar. 16 to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cotig. pp. 938, 1311, 1361, 1362 P, 1823, 1845, 2002 O, 
Senate Jottrnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 635, 636, 715, 85,9 P, 891, 896. 

195. Pension to Mrs. L. C. Beezely. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 576, / sess. 4g Cong. "An act for the relief of Louisa C. Beezely." 



174 List of Vetoes. [Am A 

1885. Dec. 21 to 1886, Apr. 23 (?), in the House. 1886, Apr. 26 to June 5, in the 

Senate. 

1886. June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 164, 1260, 1360, 1362 P, 1821, 1844, 2002 O. 
. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 635, 636, 707, 858 P, S91, 895. 

196. Pension to Mrs. Maria Hunter. [§ 71.] 

//. I\. 7/67, / sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the reUef of Mrs. Maria Hunter." 

1886. Mar. 22 to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to May 24, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. July 30, reconsidered by the House; vote, I11-108. 

House Journal, 1 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1017, 1173, 1206 P, 1710, 1716, 1736, 2007 O, 

2193, 2222, 2395, 2407 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 647, 790 P> 

816,817. 

197. Pension to Mrs. S. Harbaugh. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 68gj, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Sarah Harbaugh." 

1886. Mar. 16 to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 943, 1358, 1541, 1542 P, 1S23, 1845, 2008 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 700, 766, 861 P, 891, 896. 

198. Pension to Mrs. Anna A. Probert. [§ 74.] 

H. K. 770J, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Anna A. Probert," 

1886. Apr. 12 to May 14, in the House. May 17 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1227, 1449, 1611, 1612 P, 1824, 1846, 2003 O. 
— So/die Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 745, 746, 806, 861 P, 891, 896. 

199. Pension to Mrs. M. Mcllwain. [§ 74.] 

H. A'. Tit>2, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Martha Mcllwain." 

1886. Mar. 22 to May 14, in the House. May 17 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1017, 1535, 161 1, 1612 P, 1823, 1845, -°°3 O- 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 746, 806, 861 P, 891, 896. 

200. Pension to Clark Boon. [§ 74.] 

H. H. ygj^, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act increasing the pension of Clark Boon." 

1886. Apr. 19 to May 14, in the House. May 17 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, / sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1290, 1451, 161 1, 1612 P, 1S24, 1846, 2004 O. 
Senaic Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 746, 806, 861 P, S9T, S96. 

201. Pension to James H. Darling. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 72^7, / sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to James H. Darling." 

1886. Mar. 29 to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 
House J,' urn a I, i sess. 4Q Cong. pp. 1079, 1357, 1541, i-'.' P, 1S24, 1S46, 2004 0> 
2399. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 700, 750, ■•••^•^ \\ 891, 896. 

202. Pension to Charles A. Chase. [§ 74.] 

//. 7?. 6372, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to pension Charles A. Chase." 

1886. Mar. I to Apr. 16, in the House. Apr. 19 to Jui.e 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 



1886] Cleveland'' s Admitiistration. 175 

House Journal, i S£ss. 4g Cong. pp. 8oi, 986, 1276, 1277 P, 1823, 1S45, 2005 O. 

Senate Jour^ial, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 577, 578, 753, 860 V, 891, 895. 

203. Pension to H. Tillman. [§ 73.] 

J/. A". 76/4, I sess. 4g Cong, " An act granting an increase of pension to Hezekiah 
Tillman." 

1886. Apr. 5 to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House y carnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1151, 131 1, 1362, 1363 P, 1824, 1846, 2006 O. 
Senate yournal, i sess. 4g Cotig. pp. 636, 723, 859 P, 891, 896. 

204. Pension to W. H. Starr. [§ 71.] 

//. K. 6718, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to William H. Starr." 

1886. Mar. 16 to Apr. 23, in the House. Apr. 26 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Joiirual, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 935, 1271, 1361, 1 ;;r)2 P, 1823, 1845, 2006 O. 
■ Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 635, 636, 723, 859 P, 891, 896. 

205. Pension to Mrs. M. Norman. [§ 74.] 

//. K. 6/gj, I sess. 4g Cong. " .\n act granting a pension to Mary Norman." 

1886. Mar. I to Apr. 2, in the House. Apr. 5 to May 24, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 794, 963, 1133 P, 1710, 1731, 2006 O, 2147, 2407. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 512, 513, 676, 793 P, 816, 817. 

206. Pension to Joseph Tuttle. [§ 75.] 

//. R. Jiog, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Joseph Tuttle." 

1886. Mar. 22 to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to June 5, in the Senate. 

June 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1015, II74, 1206 P, 1823, 1845, 1999 O- 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 707, 859 P, 891, 896. 

207. Pension to J. S. Kirkpatrick. [§ 74.] 

S. jygy, / sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to John S. Kirkpatrick." 

1886. Mar. 8 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 12, in the House. 

June 29, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, / sess. 4g Cong. pp. 394, 583, 604 P, 903, 941, 966, 1024 O, 1025, 
1 165. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1337, 1354, 1604, 1S70, 1871 P, 1914. 

208. Pension to N. Parker. [§ 72.] 

S. /077, / sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Nevvcomb Parker." 

1886. Jan. 14 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to June 12, in the House. 

June 29, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 173, 565, 603 P, 903, 941, 966, 1025 O, 1026, 
1165. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1336, 1353, 1578, 1870, 1871 P, 1914. 

209. Pension to "W. Boone. [§ 74.] 

//. A'. 47^, / sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to William Boone." 

1S85. Dec. 21 to 1886, Mar. 12, in the House. 1886, Mar. 15 to May 21, in the Senate. 

1886. July 2, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 160, 812, 917 P, 1^83, 1720, 2085 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 424, 425, 63S, 778 P, Soy, 810. 

210 Pension to M. L. Buudy. [§ 66.1 

S. j6j, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act for the relief of Martin L. Bundy." 



176 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

1885. Dec. 10 to 1886, May 17, in the Senate. 1886, May 18 to June 16, in the House. 

i886. July 3, vetoed. 

Seiiatc Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 72, 321, 747 P, 918, 966, 981, 1053 O, 1054. 
House Journal, i sess. ^9 Cong. pp. 1651, 1656, 1894, 1903, 1904 P, 1961. 

211. Pension to A. F. Iioomis. f§ 72.] 

H. I?. 7018, I sess. 4g Cong: "An act granting a pension to Aretus F. Loomis." 

1886. Mar. 22 to Apr. 16, in the House. Apr. 19 to June 17, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

Hotise Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. loii, 1200, 1277 P, 1919, 1935, 21 11 O, 

Senate Joiirnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 577, 578, 913, 927 P, 949, 950. 

212. Pension to H. L. Kyler. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 1818, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to H. L. Kyler." 

1886. Jan. 6 to Apr. 16, in the House. Apr. 19 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 240, 1098, 1276, 1277 -P' 1821, 1841, 21 1 1 O. 
■ Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 577, 578, 715, 859 P, 879, 888. 

213. Pension to James T. Irwin. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 3640, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to James T. Irwin." 

1886. Tan. IT to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 337, 1410, 1541, 1542 P, 1821, 1842, 2134 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 699, 700, 759, 860 P, S79, 888. 

214. Pension to Mrs. R. V. Howley. [§ 74.] 

//. yi. JJ06, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pensii>n to Roxana V. Rowley." 

1886. Fel). 8 to Mar. 19, in the House. Mar. 22 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

Homr Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 582, 846, 992, 993 P, 1822, 1842, 2135 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 459, 796, 861 P, S79, 8SS. 

215. Pension to Mrs. M. A. Jacoby. [§ 74.] 

//. R. J03/, J sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Margaret A. Jacoby." 

1886. Feb. I to Mar. 19, in the House. Mar. 22 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 523, 847, 991, 092 P, 1822, 1842, 2136 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 459, 796, 861 P, S79, 888. 

216. Pension to A. Morehead. [§ 74.] 

H. R. JJ04, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act to restore tlie name of Abner Morehead to the 
pension-roll." 

1886. Jan. II to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 323, 1447, 1 541, 1542 P, 1S21, 1842, 2137 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 699, 700, 759, 860 P, 879, 888. 

217. Pension to E. McKay. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 47S2, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Elizabeth McKay." 

1886. Tan. 26 to Apr. 2, in the House. Apr. 5 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 474, 1034, 1 132, 11 33 P, 1S20, 1S32, 1842, 
2138 O. Senate Jouriial, i sess. 4g Co7ig. pp. 511, 513, 70S, 862 P, 871, 879, 889. 



i886] Cleveland' s Administration. \TJ 

218. Pension to "William Dermody. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 1503, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to William Dermody." 

1886. Jan. 5 to Feb. 19, in the House. Feb. 23 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 217, 619, 715, 716 P, 1821, 1841, 2138 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. ^g Cong, pp, 323, 324, 796, 861 P, 879, 887. 

219. Pension to "W. H. Nevil. [§71.] 

//. /v. s62j, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to William H. Nevil." 

1886. Jan. II to Mar. 26, in the House. Mar. 29 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 337, 911, 1066, 1067 P, 1821, 1842, 2139 O.— — 
Senate Jcurnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 488, 706, 858 P, S79, 888. 

220. Pension to F. Deming. [§ 74.] 

H. A'. ^977, f sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Francis Deming." 

1886. Jan. 7 to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 295, 1172, 1205, 1206 P, 1821, 1837, 2141 O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 752, 860 P, 879, 887. 

** 221. Pension to J. Romiser. [§ 74.] 

H. R. lOji), I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to grant a pension to Joseph Romiser." 

1886. Jan. 5 to May 21, in the House. May 24 to June 17, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. July 16, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 

175 to 38. Aug. 3, by the Senate; passed over the veto, 50 to o. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 197, 1454, 1679 P, 1919, 1935, 2143 0» 2192, 

2229 R, 2230, 2529. Senate Jotirnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 783, 792, 906, 927 P, 949, 

950, 112S, 1 129, 1139, 1265 R. 

222. Pension to James Carroll. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 4642, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to James Carroll." 

i886. Jan. 26 to Mar. 5, in the House. Mar. 8 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 468, 850, 851 P, 1S22, 1842, 2139 O. 

Senate Jcurnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp."394i 396, 705, 858 P, 879, 888. 

223. Pension to L. W. Scanland. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 304J, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Lewis W. Scanland." 

1886. Jan. 7 to Apr"; 23, in the Plouse. Apr. 26 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Jcurnal, x sess. 4g Cong. pp. 298, 1313, 1361, 1363 P, 1821, 1841, 2140 O. 
SenoU Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 635, 636, 723, 859 P, 879, 888. 

224. Pension to Maria Cunningham. [§ 74.] 

//. R. J414, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Maria Cunningham." 

1886. Feb. 8 to May 7, in the House. May 10 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 586, 1358, 1541, 1542 P, 1822, 1842, 2137 O. 
Sena/t' Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 700, 759, 860 P, 879, 888. 

225 Pension to R. H. Stapleton. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 4'jg'j, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Robert H. Stapleton." 
1 886. Jan. 26 to Apr. 16, in the House. Apr. 19 to June 5, in the Senate. 



178 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

1886. July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4<p Cong. pp. 475, 963, 1276, 1277 P, 1822, 1842, 2136 O. — — 
Senate Journal, j sess. 4g Cong. pp. 577, 578, 706, 858 P, 879, 888, 

226. Pension to Mrs. M. Karstetter. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 2043, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to place Mary Karstetter on the pension-roll." 

1886. Jan. 6 to Apr. 9, in the House. Apr. 12 to June 17, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 249, 1 1 71, 1206P, 1919, 1935, 2135 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 544, 752, 920 P, 949, 950. 

227. Public Bmlding at Duluth. [§ 93.] 

H. R. jsjo, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to provide for the erection of a public building 
at Duluth, Minnesota." 

1886. P'eb. II to Apr. 5, in the House. Apr. 6 to June 17, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 617, 1159 P, 1919, 1935, 2140 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 517, 877, 927 P, 949, 950. 

228. Pension to Mrs. F. E. Evans. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 4426, I sess. 4g Co7ig. " An act granting a pension to Fannie E. Evans." 

1886. Jan. 26 to Feb. 26, in the House. Mar. i to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 458, 691, 767 P, 1822, 1842, 2134 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 347, 752, 860 P, 879, 888. 

229. Pension to Mrs. S. A. Bradley. [§ 74.] 

H. R. S394> I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Sally Ann Bradley." 

1886. Feb. 8 to Mar. 12, in the House. Mar. 15 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 1887, Mar. 3, reconsidered by the House; vote, 123-122. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 585, 812, 917 P, 1822, 1842, 2121 O, 2295, 2388, 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 425, 705, 858 P, 879, 888. House Jour- 
nal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 640, 641, 832 R. 

230. Pension to Mrs. C. McCarty. [§ 74.] 

H. R. s^oj, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catherine McCarty." 

1886. Feb. 15 to Mar. 5, in the House. Mar. 8 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. July 16, reconsidered in the House; vote, 124-97. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 659, 763, 851, 852 P, 1822, 1843, 2116 O, 2117. 

2163, 2225, 2228 R. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 394, 396, 705, 858 P, 

879, 889. 

231. Pension to E. M. Harrington. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 6648, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of Edward M. Harrington." 

1886. Mar. 8 to Apr. 2, in the House. Apr. 5 to June 5, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Jotirnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 872, 1033, 1 132, 1x33 P, 1821, 1832, 1843, 
2III O. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 512, 513, 708, 857 P, 871, 879, 889. 

232. Right of way to railroads in Northern Montana. [§ 41.] 

S. 22S/, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting to railroads the right of way through the 
Indian reservation in Northern Montana." 

1886. Apr. 29 to June 17, in the Senate. June 18 to June 22, in the House. 

July 7, vetoed. 



i886] Cleveland' s Administration. 179 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 653, 766, 919 P, 964, 981, 1003, 1059 O, 1062, 
1127. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1917, 1927, 1961 P, 1987. 

233. Pension to Daniel H. Ross. [§ 71.] 

H. R. ^^24, I sess. 4g Ccmg. " An act granting a pension to Daniel H. Ross." 

1885. Dec. 21 to 1886, Mar. 5, in the House. 18S6, Mar. 8 to June 5, in the Senate. 

1886. July 9, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 162, 762, 850, 85 1 P, 1 820, 1832, 1866, 2018, 

2023, 2161 O. Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 393, 396, 707, 857 P, IO04, 

1005. 

** 234. Public building at Dayton, Ohio. [§ 93.] 

S. 8j6, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to provide for the erection of a public building in 
the city of Dayton, Ohio." 

1886. Jan. 5 to Feb. 9, in the Senate. Feb. Ii to June 19, in the House. 

July 9, vetoed. 1887, Mar. 3, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the 

veto, 39 to 18. Mar. 3, by the House; passed over the veto, 133 to 64. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 130, 246, 271 P, 947, 950, 990, 991, 1003, 

1082 O, 1083. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 615, 628, 1930 P, 1951, 1994- 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 561 R, 580. House Journal, 2 sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 842, 851 R, 852. 

235. Public building at Asheville, N. C. [§ 93.] 

H. R. SS4^' ^ ^^^^^ 49 Cong. " An act for the erection of a public building at Ashe- 
ville, North Carolina." 

1886. Feb. II to Mar. 4, in the House. Mar. 4 to June 17, in the Senate. 

July 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 616, 836, 837 P, 1919, 1994, 2178 O, Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 377, 380, 877, 927 P, 990, 991. 

236. Bridge across Lake Champlain. [§ 98.] 

S. 6j, / sess. 4g Cong. "An act to authorize the construction of a highway bridge 
across that part of the veaters of Lake Champlain lying between the towns of North 
Hero and Alburgh in the State of Vermont." 

1885. Dec. 8 to 1886, Apr. 21, in the Senate. 1886, Apr. 22 to July 20, in the House. 

1886. July 30, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 49, 336, 610 P, 1146, 1156, 1160, 1205 O, 1206. 
— — House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1329, 1351, 1646, 2280 P, 2308. 

237. Public building at Springfield, Mo. [§ 93.] 

H. R. ijgi, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to provide for the erection of a public building 
at Springfield, Missouri." 

1886. Jan. 5 to June 7, in the House. June 8 to July 22, in the Senate. 

July 30, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 212, 681, 1828 P, 2308, 2317, 2456 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 871, 876, looi, 1152 P, 1157. 

238. Pension to W. H. "Weaver. [§ 74.] 

S. 1421, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to William H. Weaver." 

1886. Feb. 8 to May 24, in the Senate. May 25 to July 23, in the House. 

July 31, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 260, 639, 789 P, 1 161, 11 77, 1 1 78, 1 179, 1 226 O, 

1228. House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1711, 1717, 1742, 2155, 2231, 2324 P, 

2344- 



i8o List of Vetoes. [App. A 

239. Pension to Mrs. M. J. Hagerman. [§ 74.] 

S. 2160, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary J. Hagerman." 

1886. Apr. 16 to May 24, in the Senate. May 25 to July 16, in the House. 

July 31, vetoed. 

Senate you7-nal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 570, 639, 789 P, 1128, 1145, 1147, 1228 O, 
1229. House Journal, i sess. ^9 Cong. pp. 1711, 1718, 1743, 2155, 2231 P, 2277. 

240. Pension to Mrs. J. Do-wr. [§ 74.] 

J/. A". 3363, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Jeannette Dow." 

1886. Jan. II to May 28, in the House. June i to July 16, in the Senate. 

July 31, vetoed. 

House Journal, j sess. 4g Cong. pp. 326, 1673, 1749, 1750 P, 2228, 2248, 2475 O. 
— '■ — Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 830, 832, 962, ii2i P, 11 30. 

241. Pension to Mrs. R. Barnes. [§ 74.] 

H. R. giob, I sess: 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Rachel Barnes." 

1886. May 24 to June 18, in the House. June 21 to July 22, in the Senate. 

July 31, vetoed. 

House journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1699, 1921, 1922 P, 2308, 2317, 2482 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 949, 984, 1152 P, 1157. 

242. Pension to Duncan Forbes. [§ 73.] 

H. R. 8336, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting an increase of pension to Duncan 
Forbes." 

1886. May I to May 14, in the House. May 17 to July 22, in the Senate. 

July 31, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1454, 1611, 161 2 P, 2308, 2317, 2482 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 746, 1002, 1152 P, 1157. 

243. Pension to Mrs. A. Kinney. [§ 74.] 

H. R. S38g, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Ann Kinney." 

1886. Feb. 8 to June 12, in the House. June 15 to July 26, in the Senate. 

Aug. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 585, 1522, 1871, 1872 P, 2356, 2378, 2541, O. 
Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 907, 908, 1137, 11 80 P, 11 88, 1193. 

244. Pension to A. Points. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 8^^6, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Abraham Points." 

1886. May 3 to May 28, in the House. June I to July 26, in the Senate. 

Aug. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1478, 1673, 1749, 1750 P, 2357, 2379, 2540 O. 
• Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 830, 832, II51, I181 P, I189, 1194. 

245. Pension to G. W. Cutler. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 3JJI, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to George W. Cutler, 
late a private in Company B, Ninth Nev^^ Hampshire Volunteers." 

1886. Jan. II to May 21, in the House. May 24 to July 26, in the Senate. 

Aug. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 334, 1605, 1678, 1679 P, 2356, 2378, 2541 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 783, 792, 1158, 1181 P, 1188, 11 93. 

246. Pension to Susan Hav7es. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 7234, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Susan Hawes." 
1886. Mar. 29 to June 12, in the House. June 15 to July 26, in the Senate. 



i886] Cleveland' s Administration. i8i 

1886. Aug. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1078, 1577, 1871 V, 2356, 2379, 2542 O. 

Senate jcurnal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 908, 1151, 1181 P, 11S9, 1194. 

247. Pension to A. C. Richardson. [§ 75.] 

H. R. is^4i ^ ^^^^- 49 Cong. " An act for the relief of Mrs. Aurelia C. Richardson." 

1886. Jan. 5 to May 28, in the House. June i to July 26, in the Senate. 

Aug. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 221, 1674, 1749, 1750 P, 2356, 2379, 2543 O. 
Sencre Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 830, 832, 1095, n^o P» "89, 1193. 

248. Pension to "W. Dickens. [§ 72.] 

5. 22bg, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to William Dickens." 
18S6. Apr. 28 to May 26, in the Senate. May 26 to Dec. 18, in the House. 

1887. Jan. 19, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 648, 676, 811 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1726, 1730, 1893. — — Senate Journal. 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 90, 116, 117, 
'121, 176 O. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 121, 122 P. 

249. Pension to B. Obekiah. [§ 72.] 

S. 2JYJ, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Benjamin Obekiah." 

1886. Apr. 19 to Apr. 21, in the Senate. Apr. 22 to 1887, Jan. 7, in the House. 

1887. Jan. 27, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 578, 584, 604 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1337, I355j 1900. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 126, 148, 

152, 161, 224 O, 225, 230. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 188 P, 248. 

25Q. Relief of H. K. Belding. [§ 66.] 

.S". i2y, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of H. K. Belding." 

1885. Dec. 8 to 1886, May 18, in the Senate. May 18 to 1887, Jan. 7, in the House. 

1887. Jan. 27, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 52, 330, 756 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1653, 1656, 2013. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 120, 148, 

152, 161, 225 O, 227. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 182 P, 247. 

251. Pension to Margaret Dunlap. [§ 74.] 

.S". 2167, I sess. 4g Cotig. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret Dunlap." 

1886. Apr. 16 to June 5, in the Senate. June 7 to 1887, Jan. 14, in the House 

1887. Jan. 31, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 571, 706, 861 P. — —House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1824, 1833, 1968. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 158,, 172, 

173, 177, 241 O, 242. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 262, 263 P, 310. 

252. Pension to A. Falconer.'^ [§ 74.] 

H. K. 6442, J sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Alexander Falconer." 

1886. Mar. 8 to May 21, in the House. May 24 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 3, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 863, 1504, 1678, 1679 P. Senate Journal, 

J sess. 4g Cong. pp. 783, 793, 1 1 85. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 325, 

485 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 159 P, 178, 184. 

253. Pension to VT. Lynch. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 6ij2, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to William Lynch." 
1886. Mar. I to June 18, in the House. June 21 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 



1 82 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

1887. Feb. 3, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 791, 1649, 1921 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 948, 949, 11 85. I/otise Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 325, 486 O. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 159 P, 178, 184. 

254. Pension to R. K. Bennett. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 7(398, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Robert K. Bennett." 

1886. Apr. 12 to June 18, in the House. June 21 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1227, 1672, 1921 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong, pp.949, 1197. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 325, 502 O. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 159 P, 178, 184. 

255. Pension to Franklin Sweet. [§ 72.] 

H. R. 7540, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act to increase the pension of Franklin Sweet." 

1886. Apr. 5 to Dec. 18, in the House. Dec. 20 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1148, 1892. House Jotirnal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. 

pp. 121, 122, 124 P, 304, 325, 501 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 90, 91, 

132, 159 P, 178, 184. 

256. Pension to A. P. Griggs. [§ 74.]- 

H. R. 8834, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Abraham P. Griggs." 

1886. May 17 to June 18, in the House. June 21 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1628, 1706, 1921 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 949, 1213. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 326, 501 O. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 159 P, 179, 1S4. 

257. Pension to C. Stone. [§ 74.] 

H. R. g27, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Cudbert Stone." 

1885. Dec. 21 to 1886, Feb. 26, in the House. 1886, Mar. i to 1887, Jan. 17, in the 

Senate. 
1887. Feb. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 178, 682, 767 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. p. 347. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 325, 500 O.— — 

. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 132, 159 P, 178, 184. 

258. Pension to Jesse Campbell. [§ 72.] 

H. R. Si^o, J sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Jesse Campbell." 

1886. Apr. 26 to July 9, in the House. July 10 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 4, vetoed. 

Hot/se Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1384, 1743, 2081, 2154 P. Senate Journal, 

J sess. 4g Co7tg. pp. 1079, 1083, 1184. Hotise Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 

325, 502 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 159 P, 179, 184. 

259. Pension to Catharine Sattler. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 6832, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catharine Sattler." 

1886. Mar. 16 to June 12, in the House. June 15 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, 1 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 940, 1453, 1871 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 908, 121 3. House Jou7-nal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 325, 503 O. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 159 P, 178, 184. 



1887] Cleveland' s Administration. 183 

260. Pension to J. R. Baylor. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 682^, I sess, 4q Cong. " An act granting a pension to James R. Baylor." 

1886. Mar. 6 to June 12, in the House. June 15 to 1887, Jan. 17, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 4, vetoed. 

Jlouse Journal, / sess. 4g Cong. pp. 940,, 1605, 1871, 1872 P. Senate Journal, 

I sess. 4g Cong. pp. 908, 1185. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 304, 325, 

504 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 159 P, 178, 184. 

261. Dependent Pension Bill. [§ 77.] 

H. A'. J04S7, 2 sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of dependent parents and honor- 
ably discharged soldiers and sailors who are now disabled and dependent upon their 
own labor for support." 

1887. Jan. 10 to Jan. 17, in the rfouse. Jan. 18 to Jan. 27, in the Senate. 

Feb. II, vetoed. Feb. 24, reconsidered by the House; vote, 175-125. 

Ifotise Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 202, 293, 294 P, 402, 410, 415, 421, 664, 719, 

720, 567 O, 664, 719 R, 720. Senate Jour mil, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 166, 168, 170, 

218 P, 219, 222, 227, 235. 

262. Texas seed bill. [§ 96.] 

H. R. 1020J, 2 sess. 4g Cong. "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to 
make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-strick'en counties of Texas, and 
making an appropriation therefor." 

1886. Dec. 13 to 1887, Jan. 29, in the House. 1887, Jan. 29 to Feb, 2, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 16, vetoed.-^ Feb. 17, reconsidered by the House; vote, 83-159. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 81, 328, 417 P, 467, 479, 634 O, 635 R. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 231, 248 P, 259. 

263. Pension to Charlotte O'Neal. [§ 74.] 

6". 8^g, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Charlotte O'Neal." 

1886. Jan. 5 to May 24, in the Senate. May 25 to 1887, Feb. 4, in the House. 

1887, Feb. 19, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 130, 646, 7S9 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 171 1, 1716. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 276, 287, 288, 303, 

381 O, 3S2. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 470, 497, 498 P, 530. 

264. Pension to John Reed. [§ 75.] 

S. 1626, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to John Reed, senior." 

1886. Feb. 24 to May 24, in the Senate. May 25 to 1887, Feb. 4, in the House. 

1887. Feb. 19, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 331, 639, 789 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1711, 1717, 1891. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 276,287, 

288, 303, 382 O, 384. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 497, 498 P, 530. 

r 

265. Pension to Rachel Ann Pierpont. [§ 72.] 

S. 24j2, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Rachel Ann Pierpont." 

1886. May 18 to June 5, in the Senate. June 7 to 1887, Feb. 4, in the House. 

1887. Feb. 21, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i ^ess. 4g Cong. pp. 752, 862 P. Hojtse Jottrjial, i sess. 4g Cong. 

pp. 1825, 1833, 1891. Seriate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 275, 287, 288, 303, 

392 O, 393. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 497, 498 P, 530. 

266. Pension to Jacob Smith. [§ 72.] 

S. 211 1, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Jacob Smith." 
1886. Apr. 12 to May 24, in the Senate. May 25 to 1887, Feb. 4, in the House. 



184 List of Vetoes. [app. A 

1887. Feb. 21, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 547, 676, 789 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 171 1, 1718. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 276, 287, 288, 303, 

393 0» 394- Ho^*^e Journal, 2 sess. ^g Cong. pp. 337, 497, 498 P, 530. 

267. Pension to J. D. Pincher. [§ 74.] 

S. ij6S, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to John D. Fincher." 

1886. Mar. 3 to June 18, in the Senate. June 21 to 1887, Feb. 4, in the House. 

1887. Feb. 21, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 371, 639, 939 P. House Jour7ial, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1937, ^959' 2012. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 276, 287, 

288, 303, ^94 O, 395. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 497, 498 P, 530. 

268. Pension to Margaret R. Jones. [§ 73.] 

H. R. 10082, 2 sess. 4g Cong. " An act to increase the pension of Margaret R. Jones." 

1886. Dec. 13 to 1887, Jan. 21, in the House. 1887, Jan. 24 to Feb. 5, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House Jcw-nal, 2 ses^. 4g Co7ig. pp. 75, 256, 341 P, 515, 538, 713 O. Senate 

Journal, 3 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 190, 191, 244, 275 P, 296, 300. 

269. Pension to A. McRobertson. [§ 73.] 

H. R. 7327, 1 sess. 4g Cong. " An act granting a pension to Anthony McRobertson." 

1886. Mar. 29 to June 18, in the House. June 21 to 1887, Feb. 5, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1082, 1672, 1921 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 948, 949. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 514, 537, 712 O. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 244, 275 P, 296, 299. 

270. Pension to L. Burritt. [§ 73.] 

H. R. 8002, J sess. 4g Cong. " An act to increase the pension of Loren Burritt." 

1886. Apr. 19 to May 8, in the House. May 10 to 1887, Feb. 5, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 1293, 1410, 1541, 1542, 1546, 1547 P. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. p. 700. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 514, 537, 

713 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 201, 275 P, 296, 299. 

271. Relief of W. H. Morhiser. [§ 66.] 

H. R. S^77j ^ ^^^^- 49 Co7ig. " An act for the relief of William H. Morhiser." 

1886. Feb. 19 to June 16, in the House. June 18 to 1887, Feb. 7, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 712, 1903, 1904 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 936, 1094. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 531, 548, 713 O. 

Senate Jour^tal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 283 P, 305, 306. 

272. Relief of John How. [§ 66.] 

H. R. 7648, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the relief of the estate of the late John How, 
Indian agent, and his sureties." 

1886. Apr. 9 to Dec. 15, in the House. Dec. 15 to 1887, Feb. 8, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 24, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. p. 1 202. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 99 P, 

540, 562, 725 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 72, 73, 143, 293 P, 311, 312. 

* 273. Public building at Lynn, Mass. [§ 93.] 

S. 1162, I sess. 4g Cong. " An act for the erection of a post-office building at Lynn, 
Massachusetts." 



Cleveland^ s Administration. 185 

18S6. Jan. 20 to July 22, in the Senate. July 22 to 1887, Feb. 10, in the House. 

1887. Feb. 25, vetoed. Mar. 3, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

37 to 15. 

Se-nate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 192, 1002, II52 P. House Jourtial, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 2308, 2311. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cotig. pp. 307, 328, 331, 

437 O, 438, 563 R. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 93, 552 P, 590, 842. 

274. Pension to Mrs. Sarah Hamilton. [§ 74.] 

S. 204J, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Sarah Hamilton." 

1886. Apr. 5 to May 26, in the Senate. May 26 to 1S87, Feb. 11, in the House. 

1887. Feb. 26, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, j sess. 4g Cong. pp. 513, 676, 811 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1726, 1730, 2239. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 320, 330, 

334. 339. 448 O, 449. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 574, 575 P, 591, 

275. Pension to Anna "Wright. [§ 72.] 

S. 2210, I sess. 4g Cong. "An act granting a pension to Anna Wright." 

1886. Apr. 21 to June 5, in the Senate. June 7 to 1887, Feb. 11, in the House. 

1887. Feb. 26, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 592, 705, 861 P. House Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 1824, 1833. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 320, 330, 334, 339, 

449 O, 450. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 490, 574, 575 P, 591. 

276. Public building at Portsmouth, Ohio. [§ 93.] 

//. R. bgyb, i sess. 4g Cong. " An act to erect a public building at Portsmouth, Ohio." 

1886. Mar. 17 to 1887, Feb. 10, in the House. Feb. 11 to Feb. 12, in the Senate. 

1887. Feb. 26, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. p. 962. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong, pp. 558 P,. 

580, 610, 757 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 310, 311, 323 P, 334, 

* 277. Public building at La Payette, Ind. [§ 93.] 

.S". jrj7, / sess. 4g Cong. " An act to provide for the erection of a public building at 
La Fayette, Indiana." 

1885. Dec. 14 to 1886, May 14, in the Senate. 1886, May 15 to 1887, Feb. 10, in 

the House. 

1887. Feb. 28, vetoed. Mar. 3, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

38 to 18. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 4g Cong. pp. 84, 368, 736 P. Hotise Journal, i sess. 

4g Cong. pp. 161 6, 1645. Senate Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 307, 322, 343, 349, 

356, 480 O, 482, 562 R. House Journal, 2 sess. 4g Cong. pp. 433, 552 P, 591, 842, 

859, 866, S68, 873, 874. 

278 Relief of Nathaniel McKay. [§ 66.] 

H. R. 24'j'j, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act for tlic relief of Nathaniel McKay and the 
executors of Donald McKay." 

1888. Jan. 4 to Feb. 10, in the House. Feb. 20 to Mar. 20, in the Senate. 

Apr. 4, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 147, 391, 748 P, 1274, 1 295, 145 1 O. Senate 

Journal i sess. jo Cong pp. 344, 345, 505 P, 523, 525. 

279. Pension to Laura A. Wright. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 44^, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Laura A. Wright." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Mar. 2, in the House. Mar. 5 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. 

1888. Apr. 16, vetoed. 



1 86 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 88, 516, 1018 P, 1410, 1651 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 416, 418, 459, 579 P, 598, 603. , 

280. Pension to Betsey Mansfield. [§§ 75, 79.] 

S. Sog, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Betsey Mansfield." 

1887. Dec. 15 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 17 to Mar. 30, in the House. 

1888. Apr. 16, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 74, 275, 332 P, 56S, 598, 603, 610, 665 O, 666, 
1026, 1053. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 833, 874, 971, 1380 P, 1444. 

281. Pension to Hannah R. Langdon. [§§ 74, 79.] 

S- j4g, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Hannah R. Langdon." 

1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 17 to Mar. 30, in the 

House. 

1888. Apr. 16, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess.jo Cong. pp. 48, 204, 331 P, 568, 582, 598, 603, 610, 666 O, 668, 
1026, 1053. House Journal, i sess. ^o Cong. pp. 833, 874, 970, 1381 P, 1443, 1444. 

282. Relief of Major Daniel N. Bash. [§ 66.] 

S. sjS, I sess. JO Cong. "An act for the relief of Major Daniel N. Bash, paymaster 
United States Army." 

1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Mar. 21, in the Senate. 1888, Mar. 22 to Apr. 3, in the House. 

1888. Apr. 18, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 36, 258, 515 P, 597, 628, 629, 633, 686 O, 690. 
House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1293, 1305, 1335, '43^ ^^ 

283. Pension to William H. Brokenshaw. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 41S, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to William H. Brokenshaw." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Mar. 2, in the House. 1888, Mar. 5 to Apr. 6, in the Senate. 

1888. Apr. 21, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. JO Cong. pp. 87, 614, 1018 P, 1516, 1727 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 416, 418, 500, 616 P, 646, 647. 

284. Pension to Hannah C. De "Witt. [§ 72.] 

H. Ji. 823, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Hannah C. De Witt." 

1887. Dec. 22 to 1888,1 , in the House. 1888, Mar. 5 to Apr. 6, in the Senate. 

1888. Apr. 21, vetoed. 

Hotise Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 109, 615, 1018, 1019, 1727 O. Senate Jour- 
nal, I sess. JO Cong. pp. 416, 418, 547, 617 P, 646, 647. 

285. Pension to Morris T. Mantor. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 46^3, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Morris T. Mantor." 

1888. Jan. 10 to Mar. 16, in the House. Mar. 19 to Apr. 6, in the Senate. 

Apr. 21, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 327, 883, I202, 1203 P, 1517, 1728 O. 

Senate J'^nriial, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 489, 490, 5 1 2, 617 P, 646, 647. 

286. Pension to William H. Brimmer. [§ 74.] 

H. R. J24J, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to William H. Brimmer." 

1888. Jan. 15 to Mar. 9, in the House. Mar. 12 to Apr. 6, in the Senate. 

Apr. 24, vetoed. 

1 No further account of the bill appears in the House Journal until the message vetoing the bill is read. 
Reference is, however, made in the index to S. 451 which passed both houses and was approved Mar. 10, 
1888, which granted a pension to the same person. 



i888] Cleveland'' s Administration. 187 

House Journal, z sess. ^o Cottg. pp. 398, 1074, mo P, 1517, 1744 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 453, 454, 471, 616 P, 646, 647. 

287. Pension to "William P. Witt. [§ 74.] 

J/. R. 6go8, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to William P. Witt." 

1888. Feb. 8 to Mar. 9, in the House. Mar. 12 to Apr. 6, in the Senate. 

Apr. 24, vetoed. 

I/ottse Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 711, 1073, 11 10 P, 15 17, 1742 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 453, 454, 548, 617 P, 646, 647. 

288. Pension to Chloe Qniggle. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 4350, T sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Chloe Quiggle, widow of 
Philip Quiggle." 

1888. Jan. 10 to Mar. 16, in the House. Mar. 19 to Apr. 6, in the Senate, 

Apr. 24, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. JO Cong. pp. 324, 884, 1202, 1203 P, 15 17, 1743 O. Senate 

Journal, / sess. jo Cong. pp. 489, 490, 59 1, 617 P, 646, 647. 

289. Pension to William Sackman, Sr. [§§ 74, 79.] 

S. 46J, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to William Sackman, senior." 

1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 17 to Apr. 13, in the House, 

1888. Apr. 30, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 44, 165, 331 P, 660, 682, 684, 695, 743 O, 745^ 

1025, 1026, 1053. House Journal, i sess, jo Cong. pp. 833, 874, 1257, 1620 P, 1669. 

290. Pension to Mary Sullivan. [§ 72.] 

S. 8j8, I sess. 30 Cong. "An act granting a pension to Mary Sullivan." 

1 887. Dec. 1 5 to 1 888, Feb. 1 6, in the Senate, 1 888, Feb. 1 7 to Apr. 1 3, in the House. 

1888. Apr. 30, vetoed. 

Senate journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 75, 240, 331 P, 660, 682, 685, 695, 745 O, 746, 

1026, 1053. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 833, 875, 1072, x6i8, 1619 P, 1669. 

291. ReUef of H. B. Wilson. [§ 66.] 

H. R. ig, I sess. 30 Cong. " An act for the relief of H. B. Wilson, administrator of 
the estate of William Tinder, deceased." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Jan. 31, in the House. 1888, Jan. 31 to Feb. 13, in the Senate. 

1888. May I, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 72, 440, 620 P, 772, 1800 O. Senate Jour- 
nal, I sess. JO Cong. pp. 247, 248, 282, 305 P, 719, 720. 

292. Relief of Emily G. MiUs. [§§ 74, 79.] 

H. R. 4J34, I sess. jo Coitg. " An act for the relief of Emily G. Mills." 

1888. Jan. 10 to Mar. 16, in the House. Mar. 19 to Apr. 17, in the Senate. 

May 3, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 324, 884, 1202, 1203 P, 1678, 1811 O. Senate 

Journal, / sess. 50 Cong. pp. 489, 490, 635, 678 P, 719, 720. 

293. Sale of Indian Lands. [§ 41.] 

//. R. 1406, I sess. JO Cong. " An act to provide for the sale of certain New York 
Indian lands in Kansas." 

1888. Jan. 4 to Jan. 26, in the House. Jan. 30 to Apr. 23, in the Senate. 

May 7, vetoed. 

House Journal, / sess. jo Cong. pp. 195, 386, 553, 556 P, 1726, 1846 O. Senate 

Journal, I sess. JO Cong. pp. 227, 228, 441, 468, 520, 705 P, 721, 722. 



1 88 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

294. Public building at AUentown, Penn. [§ 93.] 

H. R. 43S7j ^ ^^^^- S'^ Co7tg. " An act to erect a public building at AUentown, Penn- 
sylvania." 

1888. Jan. 10 to Feb. 23, in the House. Feb. 24 to Apr. 24, in the Senate. 

May 9, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 341, 785, 904 P, 1753, 1862 O, 2065. Senate 

yournai, i sess. _^o Cong. pp. 371, 673, 716 P, 736, 737. 

295. Relief of Georgia A. Stricklett. [§ 74.] 

J/. Ji. 77/j, / sess. 50 Cong. " An act for the relief of Georgia A. Stricklett." 

1888. Feb. 25 to Apr. 13, in the House. Apr. 16 to Apr. 24, in the Senate. 

May 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 924, 1253, 1619 P, 1753, 1S73 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. ^o Cong. pp. 661, 692, 716 P, 736, 737. 

296. Pension to Mrs. Theodora M. Piatt. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 2282, J sess. JO Cong. "An act to pension Mrs. Theodora M. Piatt." 

1888. Jan. 4 to Apr. 13, in the House. Apr. 16 to May 2, in the Senate. 

May 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 140, 1194, 1619 P, 1S13, 1942 O. Senate 

Journal, 1 sess. jo Cong. pp. 661, 710, 758 P, 772, 773. 

297. Pension to Nancy F. Jennings. [§ 74.] 

H. R. S545i I ^^^^- 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Nancy F. Jennings." 

1888. Jan. 20 to Apr. 13, in the House. Apr. 16 to May 2, in the Senate. 

May 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 473, 1071, 1619 P, 1814, 1943 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 661, 710, 757 P, 772, 773. 

298. Use of Castle Island, Boston Harbor. [§ 48.] 

H Res. 56, / sess. 50 Cong. A joint resolution " authorizing the use and improvement 
of Castle Island, in Boston Harbor." 

1888. Jan. 10 to Feb. 28, in the House. Feb. 29 to May i, in the Senate. 

May 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, j sess. jo Cong. pp. 324, 881, 978 P, 1802, 1947 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 397, 401, 693, 750 P, 765, 766, 768. 

299. Relief of L. J. 'Worden. [§ 66.] 

S. 1064, I sess. JO Cong. "An act for the relief of L. J. Worden." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Apr. 26, in the Senate. 1888, Apr. 27 to May 2, in the House. 

1888. May 18, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. loi, 486, 730 P, 753, 779, 782, 787, 856 O, 858. 
House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1771, 1801 P, 1S43. 

300. Pension to Sally A. Randall [§ 74.] 

H. R. 88, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Sally A. Randall." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Apr. 20, in the House. 1888, Apr. 23 to Maya, in the 

Senate. 

1888. May ig, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 74, 1075, 1702 P, 1813, 1944 O. Senate 

Journal. / sess. jo Cong. pp. 703, 718, 758 P, 772, 773. 

301. Pension to William H. Hester. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 8164, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to William H. Hester." 



Cleveland's Administration. 189 

l888. Mar. 6 to Apr. 13, in the House. Apr. i6 to May 2, in the Senate. 

May 19, vetoed. 

Hotise Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1054, 1341, 1619 P, 1814, 1934, 1945 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. ^o Co7tg. . pp. 661, 710, 758 P, 772, 773. 

302. Pension to Royal J. Hiar. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 8yg, i sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Royal J. Hiar." 

18S7. Dec. 22 to 1 888, Apr. 13, in the House. 1888, Apr, 16 to May 2, in the Senate. 

1888. May 19, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. Ill, 1071, 1619 P, 1813, 1944 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess.jo Cong. pp. 661, 700, 757 P, 772, 773. 

303. Pension to Cyrenius G. Stryker. [§ 74.] 

J/. Ji. S-34i ^ ^^^^- 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Cyrenius G. Stryker." 

1888. Jan. 16 to Apr. 20, in the House. Apr. 23 to May 2, in the Senate. 

May 19, vetoed. 

ffotise Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 397, 1 152, 1702 P, 1813, 1946 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 703, 718, 758 P, 772, 773. 

304. Pension to Ellen Shea. [§ 74.] 

//. Ji. SS79f ^ ^^^^- 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Ellen Shea." 

1888. Jan. 9 to Apr. 13, in the House. Apr. 16 to May 2, in the Senate. 

May 19, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 262, 1072, 1619 P, 1813, 1946 O. Senate. 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 661, 710, 757 P, 772, 773 

305. Relief of Sarah E. McGaleb. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 66og, i sess. jo Cong. " An act for the relief of Sarah E. McCaleb." 

1888. Feb. 4 to Apr. 13, in the House. Apr. 16 to May 2, in the Senate. 

May 19, vetoed. 

House Journal i sess. jo Cong. pp. 656, 1072, 1619 P, 1814, 1947 O. Senate 

Journal, I s.^ss. JO Cong. pp. 661, 710, 758 P, 771, 772, 773. 

306. Pension to Farnaren Ball. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 4j8o, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Farnaren Ball." 

1888. Jan. 10 to Apr. 13, in the House. Apr. 16 to May 2, in the Senate. 

May 19, vetoed. 

House jjurfial, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 325, 1074, 1618, 1619 P, 1813, 1947 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 661, 710, 758 I', 772, 773. 

307. ReUef of J. E, Piloher. [§69.] 

H. R. JJ9, / sess. jo Cong. " An act for the relief of J. E. Pilcher." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Jan. 25, in the House. 1888, Jan. 25 to May 10. in the Senate. 

1888. May 26, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 84, 543 P, 1 870, 20l6 O- Senate Journal, 

J sess. JO Cong. pp. 213, 792, 804 P, 812, 813, 817. 

308. Public building at Youngstown, Ohio. [§ 93.] 

S. j./y, I sess. jo Cong. " An act to provide for the erection of a public building in 
the city of Youngstown, Ohio." 

1 887. Dec. 1 2 to 1 888, Apr. 30, in the Senate. 1 888, Apr. 30 to May 1 1 , in the House. 

1888. May 28, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 39, 487, 740 P, 811, 813, 839, 840, 847, 886 O, 
887. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1786, 1791, 1855, 1876 P, 1923. 



1 90 List of Vetoes. [App.a 

309. Pension to Anna Mertz. [§§ 74, 79.] 

S. 1227, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Anna Mertz." 

1888. Jan. 9 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. Apr. 2 to May 11, in the House. 

May 28, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. ^o Cong. pp. 129, 424, 572 P, 81 1, 839, S40, 847, 887 O, 888, 
1026,. 1053. House Journal, i sess. _^o Cong. pp. 1411, 1426, 1628, 1881 P, 1924. 

310. Pension to David A. Servis. [§§ 74, 79.] 

S. 820, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to David A. Servis." 

1887. Dec. 15 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 17 to May 11, in the 

House. 

1888. May 28, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 74, 240, 331 P, 810, 839, 840, 847, 889 O, 890^ 
1026, 1053. Jlouse Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. "iiTii 875> 1255, 1879, 1881 P, 1923. 

311. Relief of Elisha Grlswold. [§ 74.] 

S. 8jj, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the rehef of Elisha Griswold." 

1887. Dec. 15 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 17 to May I r, in the House. 

1888. May 28, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 50 Co7ig. pp. 74, 312, 332 P, 810, 839, 840, 847, 890 O, 891. 
• House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 833, 875, 1879, 1881 P, 1923, 

312. Public building at Columbus, Ga. [§ 9"3.] 

H. R. 12^^, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the erection of a public building at Colum- 
bus, Georgia, and appropriating money therefor." 

1888. Jan. 4 to Feb. 28, in the House. Feb. 29 to May 15, in the Senate. 

May 29, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess, jo Cong. pp. 187, 805, 975, 976 P, 1909, 2025 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 397, 401, 774, 825 P, 846, 851. 

313. Public building at Bar Harbor, Me. [§ 93.] 

H. J?. 446^, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act for the erection of a public building at Bar 
Harbor, in Maine." 

1888. Jan. 10 to Feb. 28, in the House. Feb. 29 to May 22, in the Senate. 

June 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. §0 Cong. pp. 348, 804, 975 P, 1968, 2069 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 397, 401, 785, 862 P, 873. 

314. Government land purchase at Council Bluffs. [§ 93.] 

H. R. i3g4, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury ta 
purchase additional ground for the accommodation of Government oflices in Council 
Bluffs, Iowa." 

188S. Jan. 4 to Feb. 23, in the House. Feb. 24 to May 22, in the Senate. 

June 5, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 194, 786, 903, 905 P, 1979, 2070 O. Senate- 
Journal, I sess. JO Cong. pp. 370, 371, 774, 867 P, 873. 

315. Pension to Johanna Loewinger. [§§ 74, 79.] 

S. 739t I •S'^-S'-J- 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Johanna Loewinger." 

1887. Dec. 14 to 1888, Feb, 16, in the Senate. — — 1888, Feb. 17 to May iS, in the House. 

1888. June 5, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 67, 276, 334 P, 846, 873, S74, 927 O, 928, 1026, 
1053. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 833, 874, 1930 P, 1985. 



i888] Clevela?td^ s Administration. 191 

316. Relief of John H. Marion. [§ 66.] 

S. 1772, I sess. JO Cong. "An act for the relit.-f of John H. Marion." 

1888. Jan. 30 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. Apr. 2 to May 28, in the House. 

June 12, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 234, 432, 577 P, 891, 909, 913, 961 O, 962. 

House Journal, j sess. jo Cong. pp. 1414, 1430, 20I2 P, 2039. 

317. Pension to Stephen Schiedel. [§ 74.] 

S. 1017, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Stephen Schiedel." 

1887. Dec. 20 to 1888, Mar. 31, in the Senate. 1888, Apr. 2 to May 25, in the 

House. 

1888. June 12, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 96, 388, 571 P, 881, 896, 898, 960 O, 96 1. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 141 1, 1426, 161 1, 1996 P, 2017. 

318. Relief of Elijah Martin. [§ 72.] 

H. R. JJ22, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of Elijah Martin." 

1888. Jan. 20 to Apr. 20, in the House. Apr. 23 to June 4, in the Senate. 

June 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 473, 1075, 1702 P, 2068, 2156 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 703, 783, 917 P, 940, 941, 942. 

319. Pension to Dolly Blazer. [§ 74.] 

H. R. sqjg, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Dolly Blazer." 

1888. Jan. 9 to Apr. 27, in the House. Apr. 30 to June 4, in the Senate. 

June 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 276, 1155, 1773 P, 2068, 2156 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 735, 736, 784, 917 P, 940, 941, 942. 

320. Pension to Elizabeth Burr. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 488, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Burr." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Apr. 27, in the House. 1888, Apr. 30 to June 4, in the Senate. 

1888. June 19, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 89, 1155, 1773 P, 2068, 2164 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 735, 736, 784, 917 P, 940, 941, 942. 

321. Pension to Virtue Smith. [§ 74.] 

S. jgj7, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Virtue Smith." 

l888. Feb. 13 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. Apr. 2 to June i, in the House. 

June 19, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 303, 388, 570 P, 911, 940, 941, 942, 945, 993 O, 
994. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1412, 1427, 1611, 2040 P, 2086. 

322. Pension to Mary F. Harkins. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 3016, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary F. Harkins." 

1888. Jan. 4 to May 11, in the House. May 14 to June 6, in the Senate. 

June 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 168, 1339, 1880 P, 2087, 2193 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 811, 813, 923, 936 P, 945, 953, 954. 

323. Pension to Mary Minor Hoxey. [§ 73.] 

H. R, 600, I sess. JO Cong. " An act increasing the pension of Mary Minor Hoxey." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Apr. 27, in the House. 1888, Apr. 30 to June 6, in the 

Senate. 



192 List of Vetoes, [App. A 

i888. June 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. j-o Cong. pp. 93, 1257, 1773 P, 2087, 2193 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 735, 736, 876, 935 P, 945, 953, 954. 

324. Relief of Lieut. James G. W. Hardy. [§ 74.] 

If. R. 8281, 1 sess. 50 Cong. " An act for the relief of Lieutenant James G. W. Hardy." 

1888. Mar. 9 to May 11, in the House. May 14 to June 6, in the Senate. 

June 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1095, 1608, 1880 P, 2088, 2194 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess.jo Cong. pp. 812, 813, 892, 935 P, 945, 954. 

325. Pension to Ellen Sexton. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 8174, I sess. 50 Co7ig. " An act granting a pension to Ellen Sexton." 

1888. Mar. 6 to May 11, in the House. May 14 to June 6, in the Senate. 

June 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1054, 1880 P, 2088, 2194 O. Senate Jour- 
nal, I sess.jo Cong. pp. 812, 813, 876, 935 P, 945, 954. 

326. Pension to Charles Glamann. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 221 J, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Charles Glamann." 

1888. Jan. 4 to May 11, in the House. May 14 to June 6, in the Senate. 

June 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 137, 1260, 1880 P, 2087, 2194 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 81 1, 813, 923, 936 P, 945, 953, 954. 

327. Pension to the -widoTW of John A. Turley. [§ 74.] 

S. 84J, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to the widow of John A. Turley." 

1887. Dec. 15 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 17 to June 8, in the 

House. 

1888. June 26, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 75, 312, 332 P, 045, 974, 975, 977, 1018 O, 1077. 
House Journal, i sess.jo Cong. pp. 833, 875, 1662, 2102, 2103 P, 2135. 

328. Relief of Joel B. Morton. [§ 76.] 

S. 4J2, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of Joel B. Morton." 

1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Mar. 31, in the Senate. 1888, Apr. 2 to June 15, in the 

House. 

1888. July 5, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jO Cong. pp. 43, 389, 576 P, 980, 1006, Id I, 1017, 1057 O, 
1058.- House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1411, 1425, 1697, 2142, 2143 P, 2201. 

329. Pension to Polly H. Smith. [§ 74.] 

S. 4S, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Polly H. Smith." 

1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 17 to June 15, in the House. 

1888. July 5, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cottg. pp. 28, 2,33 P) 98o> 1006, loil, 1017, 1059 O. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 832, 872, 1028, 2142, 2143 P, 220I. 

330. Pension to Mary Ann Dougherty. [§ 76.] 

S. IJ47, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Dougherty." 

1888. Jan. 19 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. Apr. 2 to June 15, in the House. 

July 5, vetoed. 

Senate Jourtial, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 187, 440, 577 P, 980, 1006, 1012, 1017, 1060 O, 
1062.- House Journal, i sess.jo Cong. pp. 1412, 1427, 1662, 2142, 2143 P, 220I. 



i888] Cleveland' s Administratioti. 193 

331. Pension to Julia "Welch. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 82gi, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Julia Welch." 

1888. Mar. 9 to May 25, in the House. May 28 to June 20, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Join-nal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1095, 1252, 1996 P, 2168, 2280 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 882, 885, 978, 995 P, 1007, ion. 

332. Pension to Mary Ann Lang. [§ 74.] 

I/. I\. ygoy, i sess. jo Cong. "An act granting a pension to Mary Ann Lang." 

1888. Feb. 29 to May 18, in the House. May 21 to June 20, in the Senate. 

July 5, vetoed. 

House Jozirnal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 978, 1609, 1931 P, 2168, 2281 O. Senate 

Jotirnal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 846, 847, 948, 994 P, 1007, ion. 

333. Pension to "William M. Campbell, Jr. [§ 74.] 

H. R.gj84, I sess. jo Cong, "An act granting a pension to William M. Campbell, 
junior." 

1888. Apr. 3 to June 8, in the House. June 11 to June 20, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1418, 1661, 2103 P, 2168, 2292 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 946, 947, 971, 995 P, 1007, ion. 

334. Pension to Harriet E. Cooper. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 8807, J sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Harriet E. Cooper." 

1888. Mar. 23 to June 8, in the House. June 11 to June 20, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1297, 1627, 2103 P, 2168, 2293 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 946, 947, 971, 995 P, 1007, ion. 

335. Relief of "Van Buren Brown. [§ 74.] 

//. R. 64J1, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of Van Buren Brown." 

1888. Jan. 31 to June 8, in the House. June 11 to June 20, in the Senate. 

July 6, vetoed. 

House Joiirnal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 604, 1613, 2 103 P, 2168, 2293 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 946, 947, 964, 995 P, 1007, loio. 

336. Pension to Nathaniel D. Chase. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 36'j, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Nathaniel D. Chase." 

18S7. Dec. 21 to 1888, June 8, in the House. 1S88, June n to June 20, in the 

Senate. 
1888. July 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 85, 1612, 2103 P, 2167, 2293 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 946, 947, 971, 995 P, 1006, loio. 

337. Relief of Mary Fitzmorris. [§ 72.] 

H. R. gj20, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of Mary Fitzmorris." 

1888. Apr. 17 to June 22, in the House. June 25 to June 30, in the Senate. 

July 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1653, 2192 P, 2254, 2366 O. Senate Journal, 

I sess. JO Cong. pp. 1006, 1008, 1020, 1041 P, 1055, 1057. 

338. Pension to Tobias Baney. [§ 74.] 

S, 131, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Tobias Baney." 
1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Feb. 16, in the Senate. -1888, Feb. 17 to June 29, in the House. 



194 List of Vetoes. [App. a 

1888. July 16, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 30, 313, 332 P, 1037, 1055, 1056, 1067, III3 O,, 
1 114. — —House Journal, i sess. §0 Cong. pp. 832, 873, 2079, 2243, 2244 P, 2272. 

. 339. Pension to Amanda F. Deck. [§ 74.] 

S. 4J0, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Amanda F. Deck." 

1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Mar. 29, in the Senate. 1888, Mar. 30 to June 29, in the 

House. 

1888. July 16, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 44, 350, 559 P, 1036, 1055, 1056, 1067, II14 O, 
II 15. House Jourtial, j sess. jo Cong. pp. 1378, 1387, 1610, 2243, 2244 P, 2272. 

340. Pension to John P. Ballier. [§ 72.] 

S. 16/ J, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting an increase of pension to John F. Ballier."^ 

1888. Jan. .24 to Feb. 16, in the Senate. Feb. 17 to June 29, in the Ilouse. 

July 17, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, j sess. 50 Cong. pp. 204,331 P, 1036, 1055, 1056, 1068, I124 O,. 
1125. House Jottrnal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 834, 876, 2079, 2243, 2244 P, 2273. 

341. Pension to Thomas Shannon. [§ 74.] 

H. /i. jc^/J, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Tliomas Shannon." 

1888. Jan. 24 to June 15, in the House. June 18 to June 30, in the Senate. 

July 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 518, 1664, 2143 P, 2253, 2376 O. Senate 

Journnl, I sess. JO Cong. pp. 981, 982, 1020, 1041 P, 1055, 1957." 

342. Pension to Woodford M. Houchin. [§ 74.] 

H. R. gi74, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Woodford M. Houchin." 

1888. Apr. 3 to June 15, in the House. June 18 to June 30, in the Senate. 

July 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1417, 1769, 2143 P, 2254, 2377 O. Senate 

Journal, /-.sess. jo Co7ig. pp. 981, 982, 991, 1040 P, 1055, 1057. 

343. Pension to Theresa Herbst. [§ 76.] 

H. R. SojS, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Theresa Herbst, widovr 
of John Herbst, late private Company G, One hundred and fortieth Regiment of Nevr 
York Volunteers." 

1888. Mar. 5 to June 15, in the House. June 18 to June 30, in the Senate.' 

July 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1032, 2143 P, 2253, 2377 O. Senate Journal, 

I sess. JO Cong. pp. 981, 982, 1020, 1041 P, 1055, ^57. 

344. Pension to Bridget Foley. [§ 74.] 

S. J447, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Bridget Foley." 

1888. Jan. 16 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. Apr. 2 to July 13, in the House. 

July 26, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 159, 458, 578 P, iiio, 1125, I126, I128, I1S6O, 
I187. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1412, 1427, 1662, 2345 P, 2379. 

345.VRight of -way for a railroad through Indian Lands. [§ 41.] 
.S". 2644, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting the right of way to the Fort Smith, Paris,, 
and Dardanelle Railway Company, to construct and operate a railroad, telegraph, and 
telephone line from Fort Smith, Arkansas, through the Indian Territory, to or near 
Baxter Springs, in the State of Kansas." 



i88S] Cleveland' s Administration. 195 

1888. Apr.. 9 to May 2, in the Senate. May 4 to July 10, in the House. 

July 26, vetoed. 
Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 627, 726, 760 P, 1091, 1093, 1 102, 1 103, II05, 
1 187 O, 1193. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. iS-:5, 331 1 P, 2334, 2341. 

346. Relief of P. A. Leatherbury. [§ 66.] 

H. Ji. ^008, I sess. JO Cong. "An act for the relief of P. A. Leatherbury." 

1888. Jan. 4 to May 2, in the House. May 3 to July 19, in the Senate. 

Aug. 3, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Co7ig. pp. 167, 701, 1804 P, 2413, 2542 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 762, 763, 928, 11 34 P, 1143. 

347. Land grant to Tacoma, "W. T. [§ 48.] 

.S". /Sjo, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting the use of certain lands in Pierce County, 
Washington Territory, to the city of Tacoma, for the purpose of a public park." 

1888. Feb. 6 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. Apr. 2 to July 24, in the House. 

Aug. 7, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 270, 451, 581 P, 1172, I181, 1182, 1 193, 1251 O, 
1253, 1322. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1414, 1430, 1689, 2454 P, 2470. 

348. Pension to Mrs. Anna Butterfield. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 8y6i, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Anna Butterfield." 

1888. Mar. 21 to June I, in the House. June 4 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 9, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cojig. pp. 1263, 1612, 2041 P, 2473, 2560 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 912, 915, 1052, I176 P, 1211, 1213. 

349. Pension to Eliza Smith. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 2140, I sess. JO Cotig. "An act granting a pension to Eliza Smith." 

1888. Jan. 4 to June 29, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 9, vetoed. 

House J^uirnal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 134, 2160, 2243 P, 2472, 2561 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1106, 11 76 P, 1211, 121 2. 

350. Pension to Stephen A. Seavey. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 7JI0, J sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Stephen A. Seavey." 

1888. Feb. 20 to July 13, in the House. July 16 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 9, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 843, 1338, 2345 P, 2473, 2562 O. Senate 

Journal, / sess. jo Cong. pp. mo, iiii, 1142, 1177 P, 1203, 1204. 

351. Pension to Sarah A. Corson. [§ 74.] 

H R. 6joy, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Sarah A. Corson." 

1888. Jan. 30 to June 29, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 9, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 577, 2123, 224.1 I', 2473, 2562 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1090, 11 76 P, I2ii. 1212. 

352. Pension to Manuel Garcia. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 3J2J, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Manuel Garcia." 

1888. Jan. 9 to June 29, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 9, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 260, 2123, 2243 P, 2472, 2563 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1053, 1176 P, 121 1, 1212. 



196 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

353. Pension to Rachel Barnes. [§ 74.] 

H. R. i4g, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Rachel Barnes." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, June 29, in the House. 1888, June 30 to July 25, in the 

Senate. 

1888. Aug. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Co7tg. pp. 77, 1 736, 2243 P, 2472, 2572 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1053, 1176 P, 1211, I2I2. 

354. Pension to Sallie T. "Ward. [§74.] 

H. R. S^y^, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Sallie T. Ward, wddow of 
the late W. T. Ward." 

1888. Mar. 16 to July 13, in the House. -July 16 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1187, 1340, 2345 P, 2473, 2572 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. mo, nil, 1138, 1177 P, 1211, 1213. 

355. Pension to George "W. Pitner. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 4go, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to George W. Pitner." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, June 29, in the House. 1SS8, June 30 to July 25, in the 

Senate. 

1888. Aug. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 89, 2244 P, 2472, 2573 O. -Senate Journal, 

I sess. JO Cong. pp. 1037, 1090, 1176 P, 121 1, 1212. 

356. Pension to Lydia A. Heiny. [§ 74.] 

H. R. goj4, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Lydia A. Heiny." 

1888. Mar. 30 to June 29, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 10, vetoed. 

Hotise Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1367, 1894, 2243 P, 2473, 2574 O. Seriate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1106, 11 76 P, 121 1, 1213. 

357. Pension to William P. Riddle. [§ 76.] 

H. R. gi8j, I sess. 50 Cojtg. "An act granting a pension to William P. Riddle." 

1888. Apr. 3 to June 29, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1418, 2161, 2244 P, 2473, 2575 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1053, I176 P, I2II, 1213. 

358. Pension to Bernard Carlin. [§ 72.] 

H. R. 23JJ, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Bernard Carlin." 

1888. Jan. 4 to June 8, in the House. June 11 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 138, 1696, 2104 P, 2472, 2576 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 946, 1036, 1 175 P, 121 1, 1212. 

359. Relief of Edson Saxberry. [§ 74.] 

H R. 6/gj, I sess. jo Cong. " An act for the relief of Edson Saxberry." 

1888. Jan. 30 to June 29, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 573, 2196, 2243 P, 2473, 2576 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1079, 1176 P, 1211, 1212. 

360. Pension to Mrs. Caroline G. Seyfforth. [§ 74.] 

H. R. gi2b, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Caroline G. Seyfforth." 



1 888] Cleveland's Administration. 197 

1888. Apr. 2 to June 30, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in trie Senate. 

Aug 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1393, 2161, 2244 P, 2473, 2575 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1037, 1052, 1176 P, 1211, 1213. 

361. Pension to James C. "White. [§ 76.] 

//. /i. gj44, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to James C. White." 

1888. Apr. 4 to June 29, in the House. June 30 to July 25, in the Senate. 

Aug. 10, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Co7ig. pp. 1582, 2160, 2243 P, 2473, 2574 O. Senate 

Jourtial, 1 sess. JO Cong. pp. 1037, 1053, 1176 P, 1211, 1213. 

362. Additional copies of the U. S. map for 1886. [§ 98] 

S. Jies. I J, I sess. jo Cong. Joint resolution providing for the printing of additional 
copies of the United States map of the edition of 1886, prepared by the Commissioner 
of Public Lands. 

1887. Dec. 15 to 1888, Feb. 7, in the Senate. 1888, Feb. 14 to July 28, in the House. 

1888. Aug. 14, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jO Cong. pp. 76, 277 P, 1206, 1232, 1235, 1284 O, 1285. 

House Journal, j sess. 50 Cong. pp. 792, 2494 P. 

363. Pension to Mary Curtin. [§ 74.] 

S. 26j2, J- S£ss. JO Co7i-g. " An act granting a pension to Mary Curtin." 

1888. Apr. 10 to Apr. 17, in the Senate. Apr. 18 to July 27, in the House. 

Aug. 14, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 635, 679 P, 1202, 1223, 1230, 1233, ^285 O, 
1286. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1677, 1687, 1895, 2487, 2488 P, 2516. 

364. Pension to the widow of John Leary. [§ 74.] 

S. 1076, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to the widow of John Leary, 
deceased." 

1887. Dec. 22 to 1888, May 2, in the Senate. 1888, May 3 to July 27, in the House. 

1888. Aug. 14, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess._jo Cong. pp. 105, 390, 671, 756 P, 1202, 1223, 1229, 1233, 

1286 O, 12S8. House Jourtial, / sess. jo Cong. pp. 1814, 1821, 1898, 2487, 2488 P, 

2517- 

365. Pension to Benjamin A. Burtram. [§ 74.] 

S. J "62, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Benjamin A. Burtram." 

1888. Jan. 30 to Apr. 6, in the Senate. Apr. 4 to July 27, in the House. 

Aug. 14, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 233, 548, 615 P, 1202, 1223, 1229, 1233, 1288 O, 
1289. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 15 iS, 1599, 1895, 2487, 2488 P, 2516. 

366. Relief of P. B. Parker. [§ 66.] 

S. JojS, / sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of P. E. Parker." 

1888. May 28 to Aug. i, in the Senate. Aug. i to Aug. 2, in the House. 

Aug. 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess.jo Cong. pp. 882, 1108, 1222 P, 1232, 1264, 1265, 1269, 1326 O, 
1328. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2518, 2521 P, 2564. 

367. Pension to James E. Kabler. [§ 74.] 

S. 2616, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to James E. Kabler." 
1888. Apr. 6 to May 2, in the Senate. May 3 ^.o Aug. 3, in the House. 



198 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

1888. Aug. 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 613, 709, 756 P, 1245, 1264, 1 265, 1269, 1328 O 
1329. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1815, 1822, 1965, 2534, 2535 P, 2564. 

368. Pension to Sarah C. Anderson. [§ 74.] 

S. 2jyo, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Sarah C. Anderson and chil- 
dren under sixteen years of age." 

i888. Mar. 14 to May 2, in the Senate. May 3 to Aug. 3, in the House. 

Aug. 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess.^o Cong. pp. 466, 671, 756 P, 1244, 1264, 1265, 1269, 1329 O, 
1330. House Journal, i sess. ^o Cong. pp. 1815, 1822, 1978, 2534, 2535 P, 2564. 

369. Pension to David H. Lutman. [§ 74.] 

S. 2206, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to David H. Lutman." 

1888. Mar. I to Apr. 6, in the Senate. Apr. 4 to Aug. 3, in the House. 

Aug. 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. ^o Cong. pp. 406, 499, 615 P, 1244, 1264, 1265, 1269, 1 330 O, 
1331. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1518, l6cX5, 1898, 2534, 2535 P, 2564. 

370. Pension to Mrs. Margaret B. Todd. [§ 74.] 

S. 64J, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Margaret B. Todd." 

1887. Dec. 13 to 1888, Apr. 6, in the Senate. 1888, Apr. 4 to Aug. 3, in the House. 

1888. Aug. 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, / sess. jo Cong. pp. 61, 585, 616 P, 1244, 1264, 1265, 1268, 1331 O, 
1332. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1517, 1599, 22S6, 2535, 2536 P, 2563. 

371. Pension to John W. Reynolds. [§ 74.] 

S. IJ42, I sess. 50 Co7tg. " An act granting a pension to John W. Reynolds." 

1888. Jan. 19 to Mar. 31, in the Senate. Apr. 2 to Aug. 3, in the House, 

Aug. 22, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 187, 425, 577, 578 P, 1244, 1264, 1265, 1269, 

1332 O, 1333. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1412, 1427^ 1978, 2534, 2535 P, 

2563- 

372. Relief of W. S. Carpenter. [§66.] 

H. R. 20SS, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act for the relief of W. S. Carpenter." 

i888. Jan. 4 to May 15, in the House. May 16 to Aug. 7, in the Senate. 

Aug. 22, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 132, 1258, 1910 P, 2551, 2642 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 830, 831, 964, 1250 P, 1 26 1, 1262. 

373. Relief of Clement A. Lounsberry. [§ 70.] 

H. K. 2 J 24, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act for the relief of Clement A. Lounsberry." 

1888. Jan. 4 to May 17, in the House. -May 21 to Aug. 10, in the Senate. 

Aug. 27, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 149, 1665, 1924 P, 2584, 26S3 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 846, 1127, 1271 P, 1281, 1282. 

374. Public building at Sious City, Iowa. [§ 93.] 

S. 28S, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the erection of a public building at Sioux City, 
Iowa." 

1887. Dec. 12 to 1888, Mar. 29, in the Senate. 18S8, Mar. 30 to July 30, in the 

House. 

1888. Aug. 27, vetoed. 



i888] Cleveland' s Administration. 



199 



Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 37, 360, 561 P, I2IO, 1214, 1232, 1264, 1270, 

1290, 1291, 1303, 1354 O, 1356. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1379, 1388, 

1660, 2500 I', 2514, 2564, 2567, 2597. 

375. Pension to John S. Bryant. [§ 74.] 

//. K. S155, I ^ess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to John S. Bryant." 

1888. Jan. 16 to July 20, in the House. July 23 to Aug. 15, in the Senate. 

Sept. I, vetoed. 

House Jom-nal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 394, 1795, 2419 P, 2599, 2712 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 11 50, 1169, 1294 P, 1303, 1306. 

376. Pension to Edwin J. Godfrey. [§ 74.] 

H. A', gjdj, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Edwin J. Godfrey." 

1888. Apr. 13 to July 20, in the House. July 23 to Aug. 15, in the Senate. 

Sept. I, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1589, 1735, 2419 P, 2599, 2712 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 11 50, 11 69, 1294 P, 1303, 1306. 

377. Pension to Russell L. Doane. [§ 74.] 

H. A'. 2JOJ, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Russell L. Doane, of 
Peck, Sanilac County, Michigan." 

1888. Jan. 4 to July 27, in the House. July 28 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

Sept. 6, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 148, 1896, 2487 P, 2637, 2736 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1206, 1207, 1220, 1316 P, 1342, 1343. 

378. Pension to John Dean. [§ 74.] 

H. R. ^372, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to John Dean." 

1888. Apr. 13 to Aug. 10, in the House. Aug. 13 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

Sept. 7, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1590, 2216, 2579 P, 2638, 2740 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1274, 1279, 1301, 1317 P, 1342, 1344. 

379. Pension to C. T. Maphet. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 217, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to C. T. Maphet." 

18S7. Dec. 21 to 1888, July 6, in the House. 1888, July 9 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

1888. Sept. 7, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 79, 2184, 2290 P, 2637, 2741 O. Senate 

Journal, / sess.jo Cong. pp. 1074, 1247, 1317 P, 1342, 1343. 

380. Pension to Charles Walster. [§ 74.] 

//. R. Jjoj, J sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Charles Walster." 

1888. Jan. 19 to Aug. 3, in the House. Aug. 6 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

Sept. 7, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 465, 2160, 2536 P, 2637, 2741 O. Senate 

Journal, 1 sess.jo Cong. pp. 1245, 1263, 131 7 P, 1342, 1344. 

381. Pension to Catherine Bussey. [§ 74.] 

^- ^- 333i ^ -f^-f- 50 Cong. "An act granting a pension to Catherine Bussey." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, July 27, in the House. 1888, July 28 to Aug. 21, in the 

Senate. 

1888. Sept. 7, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 83, 2487 P, 2637, 2741 O. Senate Journal, 

I sess. JO Cong. pp. 1206, 1207, 1247, ^S'? P. 1342, i343- 



200 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

382. Pension to Mrs. Jane Potts. [§ 74.] 

H. R. jS^Si I ^ess. 50 Cong. "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Jane Potts." 

1888. Jan. 20 to Aug. 10, in the House. Aug. 13 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

Sept. 7, vetoed. 

House journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 473, 2417, 2579 P, 2637, 2742 O. Senaie 

JournaU / sess. ^o Cong. pp. 1274, 1279, 1301, 1317 P, 1342, 1344. 

383. Pension to Mrs. Catherine Reed. [§ 74.] 

H. R- 7717, I sess. JO Coiig. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catherine Reed." 

1888, Feb. 25 to July 27, in the House. July 28 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

Sept. 7, vetoed. 

House Jou7-nal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 924, 2487, 2488 P, 2637, 2742, 2743 O. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1 206, 1 207, 1220, 1316 P, 1342, 1344. 

384. Pension to Jacob Newhard. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 48JJ, I sess. 50 Cong. "An act granting a pension to Jacob Newhard." 

1888. Jan. 13 to Aug. 3, in the House. Aug. 6 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

Sept. 7, vetoed. 

House journal, i sess.' jo Cong. pp. 379, 2535, 2536 P, 2637, 2743 O. Senate 

Journal, x sess. jo Cong. pp. 1245, 1277, 1317 P, 1342, 1344. 

385. Pension to Jesse M. Stilwell. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 6^71, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Jesse M. Stilwell." 

1888. Jan. 31 to July 20, in the House. July 23 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. 

Sept. 13, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 601, 2065, 2419 P, 2639, 2776 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. II50, 1255, 1316 P, 1325, 1362. 

386. Land grant to Kansas. [§48.] 

H. Res. 14, 1 sess. jo Cong. "Joint resolution to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to certify lands to the State of Kansas for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts." 

1888. Jan. 4 to July 24, in the House. July 26 to Aug. 31, in the Senate. 

Sept. 24, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 197, 2455 P, 2709, 2828 O. Senate Journal, 

I sess. JO Cong. pp. 1181, 1185, 1216, 1371 P, 1377^ 

387. Sale of military reservation in Kansas. [§ 48.] 

H. R. 8jio, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act to provide for the disposal of the Fort Wallace 
military reservation in Kansas." 

1888. Mar. 10 to July 24, in the House. July 26 to Aug. i, in the Senate. 

Sept. 24, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1 1 1 7, 2456 P, 25 1 8, 2830 O. Senate Journal, 

I sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1181, 1185, 1216, 1224 P, 1238, 1366, 1367, 1380, 1381. 

388. Relief of Laura E. Maddox. [§ 66.] 

S. 2201, I sess. JO Cong. "An act for the relief of Laura E. Maddox, widow and 
executrix, and Robert Morrison, executor of Joseph H. Maddox, deceased." 

1888. Mar. I to May 31, in the Senate. May 31 to Sept. 21, in the House. 

Oct. 10, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 405, 903 P, 1448,- 1467, 1471, 1484, 1534 O, 
1537. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2029, 2034, 2816, 2817, 2841. 

389. Pension to Sarah A. Woodbridge. [§ 76.] 

S. 327b, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting restoration of pension to Sarah A. Wood- 
bridge." 



1 888] Cleveland^ s Administration. 201 

1888. July 9 to Aug. 23, in the Senate. Aug. 24 to Sept. 21, in the House. 

Oct. 12, vetoed. 
Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1071, 1 162, 1273, 1322, 1334 P, 1448, I467, 

I471, 1484, 1546 O, 1547. -House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 2661, 2664, 2725, 

2818 P, 2S42. 

390. Relief of James M. "Wilbur. [§ 66.] 

S. 1044, I sess. JO Cong. " An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to state 
and settle the account of James M. Wilbur with the United States, and to pay said 
Wilbur such sum of money as may be found due him thereon." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Mar. 21, in the Senate. 1888, Mar. 22 to Sept. 21, in the House. 

1888. Oct. 12, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. lOO, 251, 515 P, 144S, 1467, 1471, 1484, 15500, 
1553. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1294, 1694, 2450, 2816, 2817 P, 2841. 

391. Pension to Mary K. Richards. [§ 72.] 

5". JJ06, J sess. JO Cong. " An. act granting a pension to Mary K. Richards." 

1888. July II to Aug. 21, in the Senate. Aug. 22 to Sept. 28, in the House. 

Oct. 15, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess, jo Cong. pp. 1092, 1301, 1315 P, 1480, 1499, 1500, 1507^ 
1548 O. -;; House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2636, 2645, 2778, 2856 P, 2878. 

392. Pension to 'William S. Bradshaw. [§ 74.] 

S. j2o8, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to William S. Bradshaw." 

1888. June 25 to Aug. 21, in the Senate. Aug. 22 to Sept. 28, in the House. 

Oct. 15, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1002, 1280, 1315 P, 1480, 1499, 1500, 1507, 
1548 O, 1550. House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2636, 2645, ^739, 2856 P, 2878. 

39;3. Pension to Mary Woodworth. [§ 74.] 

H. R, 76J7, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary Woodworth, widow 
of Ebenezer F. Woodworth." 

1888. Feb. 24 to Aug. 24, in the House. Aug. 27 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, x sess. jo Cong. pp. 906, 2307, 2661 P, 2845, ^935 O- Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1352, 1353, 1385, 1458 P, 1499, 1501. 

394. Pension to Mrs. Sophia Vogelsang. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 10661, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Sophia Vogelsang." 

1888. June 30 to Sept. 7, in the House. Sept. 10 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2244, 2491, 2746 P, 2845, ^933 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1399, 1415, 1459 P, I499, 1502. 

395. Pension to John Robeson. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 620X, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to John Robeson." 

1888. Jan. 30 to Aug. 24, in the House. Aug. 27 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 573, 2661 P, 2S44, 2932 O. Senate Journal, 

1 sess. JO Cong. pp. 1352, 1353, 1385, 1458 P, 1499, 1501. 

396. Pension to Peter Liner. [§ 74.] 

H. R. giob, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Peter Liner." 

1888. Apr. 2 to Sept. 7, in the House. Sept. 10 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 16, vetoed. 



202 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1392, 2552, 2746 P, 2845, 2933 O. Senate 

yournai, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1399, 1400, 1414, 1459 P, 1499, 1501. 

397. Pension to William S. Latham. [§ 76.] 

H. y?. lojdj, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to William S. Latham." 

1888. June 18 to Aug. 24, in the House. Aug. 27 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 16, vetoed. 

House Jownal, I sess. £o Cong. pp. 2148, 2286, 2663 P, 2845, 2934 O. Senate 

yournai., i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1352, 1353, 1389, 1458 P, 1499, 1502. 

398. Pension to Lydia A. Eaton. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 24.12, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Lydia A. Eaton." 

1888. Jan. 4 to Sept. 7, in the House. Sept. 10 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 17, vetoed. 

House yotirttal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 147, 21 31, 2746 P, 2844, 2937 O- -Senate 

yournai, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1399, 1400, 1415, 1450 P, 1499, 1500. 

399. Pension to John Dauper. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 10J42, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to John Dauper." 

1888. June 4 to Aug. 24, in the House. Aug. 27 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2048, 2492, 2662 P, 2845, 2937 O. Senate 

yournai, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1352, 1353, 1389, 145S P, 1499, 1502. 

400. Pension to Ester Gaven. [§ 72.] 

H. R. I looj, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Ester Gaven." 

1888. July 26 to Sept. 7, in the House. Sept. 10 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2466, 2666, 2746 P, 2846, 2938 O.——— Senate 
yournai, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1399, 1400, 1414, 1459 P, 1499, 1502. 

401. Pension to Mary Hooper. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 10J04, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary Hooper." 

1888. June 13 to Aug. 31, in the House. Sept. 3 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2129, 2659, 2703 P, 2845, 2938 O. Senate 

Journal, r sess. jo Cong. pp. 1373, 1374, 1400, 1458 P, 1499, 1502. 

402. Pension to Ellen Kelly. [§ 74.] 

H, R. 4820, J sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Ellen Kelly." 

1888. Jan. 13 to Aug. 31, in the House. Sept. 3 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 378, 2659, 2702 P, 2S44, 2936 O. Senate 

Journal, 1 sess. jo Cong. pp. 1373, 1374, 1405, 1458 P, I499, 1501. 

403. Pension to Elizabeth Heckler. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 1 1222, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Elizabeth Heckler." 

1888. Aug. 20 to Sept. 7, in the House. Sept. 10 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 17, vetoed. 

Ho7{se Journal, I sess. JO Cong. pp. 2624, 2708, 2746 P, 2846, 2936 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1399, 1400, 1414, 1459 P, 1499, 1502. 

404. Pension to Mary A. Carr. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 4102, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary A. Carr." 
1888. Jan. 9 to Mar. 9, in the House. Mar. 12 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 



1888-1889] Cleveland' s Administration. 203 

1888. Oct. 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50. Cong. pp. 281, 882, I no P, 2844, 2937 O. Senate 

Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 453, 1356, 1457 P, 1499, 1501. 

405. Pension to Eliza S. Glass. [§74] 

/I. A'. //JJ3, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Eliza S. Glass." 

1888. Sept. I to Sept. 14, in the House. Sept. 17 to Sept. 25, in the Senate. 

Oct. 17, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2704, 2756, 2784 P, 2846, 2935 O. Senate 

Journal, / sess. jo Cong. pp. 1428, 1429, 1443, I-139 P, 1499) 1502. 

406. Relief of C. B. WUson. [§ 70.] 

H. A'. J080, I sess. JO Cong. "An act for the relief of C. B. Wilson." 

1888. Jan. 16 to May 14, in the House. May 15 to Dec. 12, in the Senate. 

Dec. 19, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 392, 789, 1902 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 824, 1209. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 78, 81, 89, 114, 

118 O. Senate Jourjtal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 57 P, 58. 

407. Relief of Michael Piggott. [§ 66.] 

H. R. 846^, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of Michael Piggott." 

1888. Mar. 13 to Sept. 14, in the House. Sept. 17 to Dec. 21, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1 158, 2781, 2782 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 1428, 1429, 1473. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 135, 140, 155, 

258 O. -Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 98 P, 106, 107. 

408. Pension to Thomas "Walsh. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 7, / sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Thomas B. Walsh." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1888, Sept. 28, in the House. 1SS8, Oct. i to Dec..20, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess, jo Cong. pp. 71, 2160, 285-6 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 1480, 1481, 1504. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 127, 140, 

256 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 91 P, 106, 107. 

409. Pension to Charles E. Scott. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 488^, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Charles E. Scott." 

1888. Jan. 13 to Oct. 5, in the House. Oct. S to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 381, 2778, 2892, 2893 ^'- Senate Journal, 

I sess. JO Cong. pp. 1512, 15 17, 1545- House Journai. 3 sess. jo Cong. pp. 127, 

140, 155, 257 O. -Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 92 P> 106, 107. 

410. Pension to Eli J. Yamgheim. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 22j6, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Eli J. Yamgheim." 

1 888. Jan. 4 to Oct. 5, in the House. Oct. 8 to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

i88g. Jan. 16, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 138, 2779, 2892, 2893 P- Senate Journal, 

1 sess. JO Cong. pp. 15 16, 15 17, 1545- ■ Hottse Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 127^ 

140, 155, 257 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Co)ig. pp. 92 P, 106, 107. 

* 411. Relief of "W. R. "Wheaton and C. H. Chamberlain. [§ 66.] 
S. 364b, 2 sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of William R. Wheaton and Charles 
H. Chamberlain, of California." 



204 ^^^^ of Vetoes. [App. A 

1888. Dec. 4 to Dec. 20, in the Senate. Dec. 21 to 1889, Jan. 3, in the House. 

1889. Jan. 17, vetoed. Feb. 26, reconsidered in the Senate; passed over the veto, 

35 to 8. 
Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 32, 45, 92 P, 106, 113, 115, 169 O, 171, 406 R. 
House yournal, 2 sess. ^o Cong. pp. 127, 139 P, 154, 640. 

412. Pension to Mary I. Drake. [§ 74.] 

H. K. gi73, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mary I. Drake." 

1888. Apr. 3 to Sept. 28, in the House. Oct. i to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, j sess. jo Cong. pp. 141 7, 21 61, 2856 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

50 Cong. pp. 1481, 1503. House Journal, 2 sess. ^o Cong. pp. 127, 146, 174, 299, 

303 O. Septate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 91 P, 11 1, 114. 

413. Pension to Mrs. Catherine Baberick. [§ 74.] 

H. J?. g2^2, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Mrs. Catherine Baberick, 
of Watertown." 

1888. Apr. 4 to Sept. 21, in the House. Sept. 24 to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1492, 2739, 2818 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 1449, 1453, 1485. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 127, 146, 174, 

299, 304 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 91 P, ill, 114. 

414. Relief of Charles "W. Geddes. [§ 70.] 

H. R. gjgi, i sess. jo Cong. " An act for the relief of Charles W. Geddes." 

1888. May 2 to Sept. 28, in the House. Oct. i to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 1796, 2461, 2855 P. Senate Journal, i sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 1481, 1510. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 128, 147, 174, 299, 

305 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 91 P, ( 1 1, 114. 

415. Pension to Bridget Carroll. [§ 74.] 

H. R. g2g6, i sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Bridget Carroll." 

1888. Apr. 4 to Sept. 28, in the House. Oct. i to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1520, 2855 P. Senate Journal, i sess, 

JO Cong. pp. 1481, 1510. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 127, 146, 174, 299, 

304 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 91 P, ill, 1 14. 

416. Pension to George Wallen, [§ 76.] 

H. R. giJJ, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to George Wallen." 

1888. Apr. 3 to Sept. 28, in the House. Oct. i to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

1889. Jan. 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, j sess. jo Cong. pp. 1417, 2160, 2855 ^- Senate Journal, 1 sess, 

JO Cong. pp. 1481, 1510. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 127, 146, 174, 299, 

305 O. -Senate Journal, 2 sess, jo Cong. pp. 91 P, iii, 114. 

417. Pension to Mary Karstetter. [§ 74.] 

H. R. ySyy, i sess. jo Cong. "An act to place Mary Karstetter on the pension roll." 

1888. Feb. 28 to Sept. 28, in the House. Oct. i to Dec. 20, in the Senate. 

i88g. Jan. 18, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 957, 2079, 2855 P. Senate Journal, i sess, 

JO Cong. pp. 1481, 1 5 10. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 127, 146, 174, 299, 

305 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 91 P, in, 114. 



1889] Cleveland' s Administration. 205 

418. Pension to Mrs. Ellen Hand. [§ 74.] 

S. J264, I sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Mrs. Ellen Hand." 

1888. July 5 to July 25, in the Senate. July 26 to 1889, Jan. 18, in the House. 

1889. Jan. 31, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 1054, 11 60, 1 175 P. House Journal, i sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 2472, 2481. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 175, 187, 188, 211, 

241 O, 242. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 87, 300, 301 P, 331. 

419. Pension to Eli Garrett. [§ 74.] 

H. R. Qfdj, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Eli C^arrett." 

1888. Apr. 3 to Dec. 14, in the House. Dec. 17 to 1889, Jan. 25, in the Senate. 

1889. Feb. 12, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess.jo Cong. p. 1417. House Journal, ssess.jo Cong: pp. 90 P, 

352, 400, 481, 484 O. Senate Journal, 2 ses.i. jo Cong. pp. 66, 166, 216 P, 230. 

420. Relief of Julia Triggs. [§74.] 

H. H. j7j2, I sess. JO Cong. " An act for the relief of Julia Triggs." 

1888. Jan. 23 to Dec. 14, in the House. Dec. 17 to 1889, Jan. 25, in the Senate. 

i88g. Feb. 12, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 493, 1 1 56. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. 

pp. 90, 91 P, 352, 400, 481, 484 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 66, 166, 

216 P, 230. 

421. Pension to Clara M. Owen. [§ 74.] 

H. R. iroj2, I sess. jo Cong. " An act granting a pension to Clara M. Owen." 

1888. July 31 to 1889, Jan. 18, in the House. 1889, Jan. 19 to Jan. 25, in the Senate. 

1889. Feb.. 12, vetoed. 

House Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 2508, 2631. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. 

pp. 300, 301 P, 352, 400, 481, 485 O. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 175, 

177, 186, 216 P, 230. 

422. Pension to Frank D. "Worcester. [§ 74.] 

S. 34JI, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Frank D. Worcester." 

1888. Aug. 16 to Dec. 20, in the Senate. Dec. 21 to 1889, Jan. 25, in the House. 

i88g. Feb. 13, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. p. 1297. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 58, 

92 P, 220, 238, 239, 242, 317 O, 318.- House Journal, 2 sess.jo Cong. pp. 126, 138, 

188, 345, 346 P, 380. 

423. Pension to Michael Shong. [§ 74.] 

S. 2J14, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Michael Shong." 

1888. Mar. 26to July 25, in the Senate. July 26 to 1889, Jan. 25, in the House. 

1889. Feb. 13, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 540, 1 162, 1 1 75 P. House Journal, i sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 2471, 2480. Senate Journal, 2 sess.jo Cong. pp. 220, 238, 239, 242, 

318 O, 319. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 345, 346 P, 380. 

424. Pension to Charles J. Esty. [§ 72.] 

S. 266J, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to Charles J. Esty." 

1888. Apr. II to June 6, in the Senate. June 7 to 1889, Feb. 2, in the House, 

1889. Feb. 14, vetoed. 

Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 640, 923, 934 P. House Journal, 1 sess. 

JO Cong. pp. 2088, 2094. Se7iate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 248, 265, 266, 26S, 

324 O. House Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 402, 403 P, 431. 



2o6 List of Vetoes. [App. A 

425. Quieting settlers' titles on the Des Moines River. [§ 48.] 

H. R. 1368, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act to quiet the title of settlers on the Des Moines 
River lands, in the State of Iowa, and for other purposes." 

1888. Jan. 4 to Dec. 5, in the House. Dec. 6 to 1889, Feb. 8, in the Senate. 

1889. Feb. 21, vetoed. Mar. 1, reconsidered by the House; vote, 147-104. 

House yournal, i sess. jo Cong. p. 193. House yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 49 P, 

457, 466, 481, 587, 596 O, 683, 697, 702 R. Senate Journal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 41, 

283 P, 290, 291. 

426. Pension to John J. Lockrey. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 220, I sess. JO Cong. " An act granting a pension to John J. Lockrey." 

1887. Dec. 21 to 1889, Feb. i, in the House. 1889, Feb. 4 to Feb. 8, in the Senate. 

1889. Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House yournal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 79, 2184. House yournal, 2 sess. ^o Cong. 

pp. 402 i', 464, 476, 622, 631 O. Senate yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 249, 271, 

285 P, 298, 299. 

427. Pension to John McCool. [§ 74.] 

H. R. jSoy, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to John McCool." 

1888. Jan. 23 to 1889, Jan. 25, in the House. 1889, Jan. 28 to Feb. 8, in the Senate. 

i88g. Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House yournal, i sess. jo Cong. p. 495. House yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 345^ 

346 P, 464, 476, 622, 632 O. Senate yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 221, 223, 235, 

286 P, 298, 299. 

428. Pension to William Barnes. [§ 74.] 

H. R. iiggg, 2 sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to William Barnes." 

1889. Jan. 7 to Jan. 18, in the House. Jan. 19 to Feb. 8, in the Senate. 

Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 50 Cong. pp. 164, 246, 301 P, 465, 477, 489, 633 O. Senate 

yournai. 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 175, 177, 199, 285 P, 298, 299. 

429. Pension to Henry V. Bass. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 1180J, 2 sess. JO Cong. "An act granting a pension to Henry V. Bass." 

1888. Dec. 14 to 1889, Jan. 25, in the House. 1889, Jan. 28 to Feb. 8, in the Senate. 

1889. Feb. 23, vetoed. 

House yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 85, 288, 345, 346 P, 465, 477, 487, 632 O. 

Senate yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. 221, 223, 235, 286 P, 298, 299. 

430. Pension to Edwin "W. "Warner. [§ 72.] 

5. J56/, / sess. §0 Cong. "An act granting a pension to Edwin W. Warner." 

1888. Sept. 17 to Dec. 20, in the Senate. Dec. 21 to 1889, Feb. 8, in the House. 

1889. Feb. 25, vetoed. 

Senate yournal, i sess. jo Cong. p. 1426. Senate yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. 

pp. 92 P, 289, 303, 304, 309, 399 O, 400. House yournal, 2 sess, jo Cong. pp. 126,, 

139, 188, 459 P, 478. 

431. Pension to Squire Walter. [§ 74.] 

H. R. 1044S, I sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting a pension to Squire Walter." 

1888. June 9 to 1889, Jan. 18, in the House. 1SS9, Jan. 19 to Feb. 8, in the Senate,. 

1889. Feb. 25, vetoed. 

House yournal, i sess. 50 Cong. pp. 2105, 2804. House yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. 

pp. 300, 301 P, 464, 477, 622, 633 O. Senate yournal, 2 sess. jo Cong. pp. I75r 

177, 209, 285 P, 298, 299. 



1889] Cleveland' s Administration. 207 

432. Pension to Greorge Colwell. [§ 73.] 

H. R. 1204'/, 2 sess. 50 Cong. " An act granting an increase of pension to George 
Colwell." 

1889. Jan. II to Feb. 8, in the House. Feb. 9 to Feb. 15, in the Senate. 

Feb. 26, vetoed. 

House Journal, 2 sess. 50 Cong. pp. 199, 340, 460 P, 516, 529, 542, 643, 696 O. 

Senate Journal, 2 sess. 30 Cong. pp. 290, 300, 328 P, 334, 336. 

* 433. Refunding the Direct Tax. [§ 54.] 

S. ijg, I sess. jo Cong. " An act to credit and pay to the several States and Terri- 
tories and the District of Columbia all moneys collected under the direct tax levied by 
the act of Congress approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one." 

1887. .Dec. 12 to 1888, Jan. 18, in the Senate. 1888, Jan. 19 to Dec. 12, in the 

House. 

1889. Mar. 2, vetoed. Mar. 2, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

45 to 9- 
Senate Journal, i sess. jo Cong. pp. 31, 58, 140, 141, 182, 183 P. House Journal, 

1 sess. £0 Cong. pp. 469, 878, 953, 1138, 1407, 1445, 1533, 1552. Senate Journal, 

2 sess. j-o Cong pp. 58, 83, 84, 86, 89, 90, 288, 298, 334, 336, 340, 342, 350, 357, 380, 

501 O, 509 R. House Journal, 2 sess. ^o Cong. pp. 49, 50, 54, 69, 71, 73, 76, 77 P, 

120, 121, 466, 469, 531, 534, 550, 551, 558, 573, 742. 



APPENDIX B. 

A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS 
FROM APRIL 6, 1789, TO MARCH 4, I889.I 



o>»ic 



PRESIDENT JACKSON (1829-1837). -[I PROTEST.] 

1. Censure of the Senate. [§ 20.] 

A protest against the Senate resolution censuring the President for his course in the 
bank controversy. 
1834. Apr. 15, protest signed. 

Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 4g Cottg. 2 sess. No. jj, /. iig O. 

PRESIDENT TYLER (1841-1845). - [2 PROTESTS.] 

2. Refusal to furnish information. [§ 26.] 

A refusal on the part of the President to furnish to the House of Representatives the 
names of applicants for office. 
1842. Mar. 23, protest signed. 

Senate Miscellaneous Documents, ^g Cong, 2 sess. No. jj, p. i6y O. 

3. Committee report on tariff veto. [§ 53.] 

A protest against the report made by a committee of the House of Representatives 
upon the President's tariff veto of Aug. 9, 1842. 
1842. Aug. «§, protest signed. Congressional Globe, 27 Cong. 2 sess. p. gy^ O. 

PRE'SIDENT BUCHANAN (1857-1861).- [I PROTEST.] 

4. Covode investigation. [§ 32.] 

A protest against the resolution of the House of Representatives appointing a com- 
mittee to investigate the President's conduct. 
i860. Mar. 28, protest signed. 

Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 4g Cong. 2 sess. No. j-j, p. 2^4 O. 

PRESIDENT LINCOLN (1861-1865^.- [I PROTEST.] 

5. Davis-Wade BiU. 

A proclamation giving the President's reasons for not signing the Davis-Wade Bill. 
1864. July 8, proclamation signed. Appleton's Anmial Cyclopcedia, 1864, p. ^oy O. 

* This list includes those protests which have had reference to the exercise of the veto power. It is 
not intended to include all presidential protests. 

[208] 



List of Protests. 209 



PRESIDENT JOHNSON (1865-1869). - [I PROTEST.] 

6. Rider taking away President's war power. [§ 30.] 

A protest against a rider which was tacked to an army appropriation bill, and which 
took from the President his direct command of the army. 
1867. Mar. 2, protest signed. 

Senate Afiscellaneous Documents, ^g Cong. 2 sess. No. jj, p. j^7 O. 

PRESIDENT GRANT (1869-1877).- [3 PROTESTS.] 

7. River and Harbor Bill. [§ 91.] 

A protest against an extravagant river and harbor bill. 
1876. Aug. 14, protest signed. 

Senate Miscellaneotis Documents, 4g Cong. 2 sess. No. j^, p. J99 O. 

8. Diplomatic Bill. [§ 23.] 

A protest against the invasion by Congress of the President's authority in foreign affairs. 

1876. Aug. 14, protest signed. 

Senate Miscellaneous Documents, ^g Cong. 2 sess. No. jj, p. 402 O. 

9. Blankets for a reform school. [§ 9.] 

A protest against a joint resolution of Congress which granted to a reform school 
army blankets which were needed by the army. 

1877. Jan. 15, protest signed. 

Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 4g Cong. 2 sess. No. ^J, p. 404 O. 

PRESIDENT HAYES (1877-1881).- [I PROTEST.] 

10. Fees of United States Marshals. 

A protest against the failure of Congress to provide for the payment of United States 
Marshals.! 
1879. June 30, protest signed. 

Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 4g Cong. 2 sess. No. jj", p. 434 O. 

^ This protest occurred in the contest between President Hayes and Congress over riders. (See 
Ante, § 35.) 



APPENDIX C. 

A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF VETOES SENT TO THE CONGRESS 

OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA FROM 

MARCH I, 1861, TO MARCH I/, 1865. 

PREPARED BY THE EDITOR FROM DATA FURNISHED BY JOHN O. SUMNER. 

1. Regulating the slave trade. (Bill.) 

1861. Mar. I, vetoed. Mar. 2, reconsidered by Congress; vote, 3 states to 4 states 

(18 yeas to 28 nays). Jotirnals, Provisional Congress, 

2. Removal of Congress to Richmond. (Bill.) 

1861. May I7(?), vetoed. May 17, reconsidered by Congress; vote, no states in 

favor. Secret jfournals, Provisional Congress. 

3. Admiralty Court for Mississippi. (Bill.) 

1861. May 2i(?), vetoed. May 21, reconsidered by Congress; failed to pass. 

Secret yournah. Provisional Congress. 

4. Appointment of additional assistant surgeons. (Bill.) 

1861. Aug. 22(?), vetoed. Aug. 22, reconsidered by Congress; vote, i state to II. 

Secret jfournals, Provisional Congress. 

t 5. [Subject not stated.] (Bills.) 
1861. Aug. 31, verbal statement on behalf of the President by the Attorney-General, 
that the President disapproved of certain bills, but was unable to prepare meS" 

sages. Dec. 21, report setting forth the facts; tabled by Congress. 

Secret Journals, Provisional Congress. 

6. Regulation of furloughs and discharges. (Bill.) 

1861. Dec. 14, vetoed. 1862, Jan. 16, reconsidered by Congress; vote, 3 states 

to 9. Secret Journals, Provisional Congress. 

7. Small-arms and gunpowder. (Bill.) 

1862. Jan. 22 (?), vetoed. Feb. 12, reconsidered by Congress; vote, 2 states to io(?). 

Journals, Provisional Congress. 

8. Incorporation of Texan volunteers into the army. (Bill.) 

1862. Jan. 22, vetoed; Feb. 12, reconsidered by Congress; vote, 3 states to 9(?). 

Journals, Provisiofial Congress. 

9. Incorporation of Missouri volunteers into the army. (Bill.) 

1862. Jan. 22, vetoed. Feb. 14, reconsidered by Congress; vote, 7 states to 4 

(i divided). Journals, Provisional Congress. 

[210] 



1861-1862] Co7ifederate States of America. 211 

10. Incorporation of Missouri volunteers into the army. (Bill.) 
1862. Jan 9, passed. 

Jan. 23(?), vetoed. Feb. 14, reconsidered by Congress; point of order that 

it had already been reconsidered.^ Journak, Provisional Congress. 

11. Furloughs. (Bill.) 

J862. Feb. I, vetoed. Feb. 15, reconsidered by Congress; vote, 8 states to 3 

(2 divided), [not considered a constitutional two-thirds majority]. 

youmals. Provisional Congress. 

1.1. Repeal of certain features of the U. S. naturalization laws. (Bill.) 

1862. Feb. 5(?), vetoed, Feb. 5, reconsidered by Congress; vote, 3 states to 9. 

jfournals. Provisional Congress. 

13. Creation of a commanding general. (Bill.) 

1862. Mar. 15, vetoed. Mar. 20, reconsidered by the House; vote, 1-68. 

Secret House yournal, i sess. i Cong. 

14. Disposition of prize money. (Joint resolution.) 

1861. Apr. 21 (?), vetoed. Apr. 21, reconsidered by the Senate; vote unanimous 

against the resolution. Secret Senate yournal, i sess. i Cong. 

15. Disposition of pay of deceased soldiers. (Joint resolution.) 

1861. Apr. 2i(?), vetoed. Apr. 21, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 7-12. 

Secret Senate yournal, i sess. i Cong. 

16. Prize money. (Joint resolution.) 

1862. Apr. 21, vetoed. Apr. 21, reconsidered by the Senate; unanimously rejected. 

Senate yournal, i sess. i Cong, 

1 17. [No subjects stated.] (Bills.) 

1862. Apr. 21, message to the House; no time to draw up reasons for withholding 

assent from three bills. Open House yournal, i sess. i Cong. 

18. Rank of Quartermaster-General. (Bill.) 

1863. Oct. 6(?), vetoed. Oct. 8, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 4-10. 

Open Senate yournal, 2 sess. i Cong. 

19. Amendment of Provisional Army Act. (Bill.) 

1862. Oct. 7(?), vetoed. Oct. 7, reconsidered by the House; vote, 1-61. 

Open House yournal, 2 sess. i Cong. 

20. Bequests to American Bible Society to go to C. S. Bible Society. 
(Bill.) 

1862. Oct. 13, vetoed. Oct. 13, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 0-16. 

Open Senate yournal, 2 sess. i Cong. 

21. Reorganization of medical department. (Bill.) 

.1862. Oct. I3(?), vetoed. Oct. 13, consideration postponed by the House. [No 

record of reconsideration.] Open House yournal, 2 sess. i Cong. 

22. Building a vessel of war. (Bill.) 

1862. Oct. i3(?), vetoed. Oct. 13, consideration postponed by the House. [No 

record of reconsideration.] Secret House youmals, 2 sess. i Cong. 

1 This bill had been presented to the President, who supposed that it had been superseded by the bill 
first vetoed; as there was no record, of supersession, President Davis vetoed the bill. 



212 Veto Power : — L ists. [App. C 

* 23. Reorganization of heavy artillery. (Bill.) 

1863. Mar. 31, vetoed. Apr. 3, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto, 

18-5. Apr. 7, reconsidered by the House; vote, 22-59. 

Open Senate Journal, 3 sess. i Cong. 

24. Free postage for newspapers. (Bill.) 

1863. May i(?), vetoed. May i, consideration postponed by the Senate. [No 

record of reconsideration.] Open Senate yournal, j sess. j Cong, 

25. Providing for elections in Tennessee. (Bill.) 

1863. May I (?), vetoed. May i, consideration indefinitely postponed by the House.. 

Open House Journal, j sess. j Cong. 

26. Appropriations for Kentucky troops. (Bill.) 

1863. Dec. 3i(?), vetoed. 1864, Jan. 11, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 10-8. 

Open Senate Journal, 4 sess. i Cong. 

27. Veteran Soldiers' Home. (BiU.) 

1864. Feb. II, vetoed. Feb. 13, laid on the table by the House. [No record of 

reconsideration.] Open House Journal, 4 sess. i Cong. 

28. Exemption of editors and employees of periodicals. (Joint reso- 
lution.) 

1864. June 7(?), vetoed. June 8, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, ii-io. 

Open Senate Journal, i sess. 2 Cong. 

29. Appointment of additional officers of artillery. (Bill.) 
1864. June 7(?), vetoed. June 8, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 1-22. 

Open Senate Journal, i sess. 2 Cong. 

30. Exemption to vessels chartered by states. (Bill.) 

1864. June 10, vetoed. June 10, reconsidered by the House; vote, 26-43. 

Open House Journal, j sess. 2 Cong. 

31. Claim of McDaniel and Ewing. (Joint resolution.) 

1864. June ii(?), vetoed. June 13, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 9-7. 

Open Senate Journal, i sess. 2 Cong. 

32. Funding and reducing treasury notes. (Bill.) 

1864. June 14, vetoed. June 14, consideration postponed. [No record of recon- 

sideration.] Open House Journal, i sess. 2 Cong. 

* 33. Increase of midshipmen. (BUI.) 

1865. Jan. 23(?), vetoed. Jan. 23, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the 

veto, 15-3. Jan. 26, reconsidered by the House; vote, 40-36. 

Senate and Hotise Journals, 2 sess. 2 Cong, 

** 34. Newspapers to soldiers to be free of postage. (Bill.y 

1865. Jan. 26, vetoed. Jan. 28, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto,. 

13-4. Jan. 31, reconsidered by the House; passed over the veto, 63-13. 

Senate and House Journals, 2 sess. 2 Cong. 

* 35. Promotion of officers by general commanding in the field. (Bill.) 
1865. Mar. 9, vetoed. Mar. 11, reconsidered by the Senate; passed over the veto,, 

II-5. Mar. ii(?), reconsidered by the House; vote, 14-45. 

Senate and House Jourjtals, 2 sess. 2 Cong. 



1863-1865] Confederate States of America. 213 

36. Abolition of certain offices. (Bill.) 

1865. Mar. II, vetoed. Nov. 14, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, 8-7. 

Senate yournal, 2 sess. 2 Cong. 

37. Diminishing exemptions and details. (Bill.) 
1865. Mar. 13, vetoed. [No record of reconsideration.] 

Senate yournal, 2 sess. 2 Cong. 

*38. Issue of $80,000,000 for payment of arrears to troops. (BUI.) 

1865. Mar. 17 (?), vetoed. Mar. 17, reconsidered by the House; passed over the 

veto, 39-18. Mar. 18, reconsidered by the Senate; vote, ii-l (not a 

quorum) . Hotise and Senate Journals, 2 sess. 2 Cong. 



APPENDIX D. 



LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY OF THE PRESIDENTS, 



I 789-1 889. 



COMPILED BY THE EDITOR. 



This appendix is based upon an examination of the Statutes at Large. A note after 
each statute indicates whether it was signed, became law by the ten days rule, or was 
passed over the veto. The number of vetoes is taken from Appendix A. 







Acts and Joint 


Resolutions. 


Bills. 




Signed by 


Became law 


Passed 






Total 






the 


by ten days 


over the 


Total. 


Vetoed. 


acts and 






President. 


rule. 


veto. 






vetoes. 


1 789-1 793. 


Washington, I. . . 


195 








195 


I 


196 


1793-1797- 


Washington, II. . . 


210* 








211 


I 


2X2 


1 797-1 801. 


John Adams . . . 


268 








268 





268 


I80I-I805. 


Jefferson, I 


205* 








206 





206 


I805-I809. 


Jefferson, II. . . . 


211 








211 





211 


I809-I8I3. 


Madison, I 


324* 








325 


4 


329 


I8I3-I8I7. 


Madison, II. . . . 


569* 








571 


2 


573 


I8I7-I82X. 


Monroe, I 


465 








465 





46s 


I82I-I825. 


Monroe, II. ... 


573 








573 


I 


574 


I825-I829. 


J. Q. Adams . . . 


501 





° 


501 





501 


I829-I833. 


Jackson, I 


831 








831 


7 


838 


I833-I837. 


Jackson, II. ... 


848 








848 


5 


853 


I837-I84I. 


Van Buren .... 


679 








679 





679 


I84I-I845. 


Tyler 


802 





I 


803 


9 


811 


I 845- I 849. 


Polk 


799 








799 


3 


802 


I849-I853. 


Taylor and Fillmore. 


973 








973 





973 


1853-1857- 


Pierce 


968 





5 


973 


9 


977 


I857-I86I. 


Buchanan .... 


680 


2 





682 


7 


689 


I86I-I865. 


Lincoln 


1035 


I 





1036 


3 


X039 


1865-1869. 


Johnson 


1446 


18 


15 


1479 


21 


1485 


I 869-1 873. 


Grant, I 


1756 


24 


I 


1 781 


17 


1797 


I873-I877. 


Grant, II 


1319 


112 


3 


1434 


26 


1457 


I877-I88I. 


Hayes 


1395 





I 


1396 


12 


1407 


188I-I885. 


Arthur 


1716 


13 


I 


1730 


4 


1733 


I885-I889. 


Cleveland . . ' . . 


2991 


283 


2 


3276 


30X 


3575 




21,759 


453 


29 


22,246 


433 


22,650 



No record of the President's action on five joint resolutions. 
[214] 



APPENDIX E. 

PROVISIONS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS 

RELATIVE TO THE VETO, 

JULY 15, 1890. 

COMPILED BY THE EDITOR. 

The basis of this appendix is the analysis in Stimson's American Statute Law, §§ 305- 
307, 310. The tabulation in Benton's Veto Power, pp. 57, 58, has been compared. 
Wherever the two authorities disagree, and in the cases of the six new States, North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Wyoming, and Idaho, the Constitutions 
have been directly examined. 

APPROVAL OF LEGISLATION BY THE GOVERNOR. 

1. Bills submitted. 

In the following States and Territories, every bill passed by the Legislature shall be 
presented to the governor before it becomes a law, and if he approves, he is to sign it : — 
N.H., Mass., Me., Vi., Ct, N. V., N.J., Pa., Ind., III., Mich., Wis., lo., Mi7tn., Kan., 
Neb., N.D., S.D., Mon., Wy., Ida., Md., Va., W.Va., Ky., Tenn., Mo., Ark., Tex., 
Cal., Ore., Wash., Nev., Col., S.C., Ga., Ala., Miss., Fla., la., — 40 States. Ariz., 
N.Mex., Utah, — 3 Territories. 

2. Bills not submitted. 

In the following States there is no provision for submission of bills: — R.L, Del., O., 
N.C., — i, States. 

3. Joint resolutions submitted. 

In the following States and Territories, every joint or concurrent resolution, except for 
adjournment, is submitted in like manner: — N.H., Mass., Me., Pa., Mich., Minn., 
Kan., Neb., Man., Wy., Va., Ky., Tejtn., Mo.,* Ark., Tex., Col., S.C, Ga., Ala., Miss., 
La,, Wash., — 23 States. Ariz., — i Territory. 

4. Joint resolutions not submitted. 

In the following States and Territories there is no provision for submission of joint 
resolutions: — Vt., R.L, Ct., N. ¥., NJ., O., Ind., III., Wis., lo., N.D., S.D., Ida., Md., 
Del, W.Va.,N.C., Cal., Ore., Nev., Ga., — 21 States. N.Mex., Utah, — 2 Territories. 

VETO OF LEGISLATION BY THE GOVERNOR. 

5. No requirement of return or statement of reasons. 

The governor may withhold his signature without stating reasons in : — Ga., — i State, 

6. Return to the House in -which the proposition originated. 

The governor may veto a bill or resolution, when submitted, by returning it, with his 
objections, to the House in which it originated, in the following States and Territories : — 
N.H., Mass., Me., Vt., Ct., N. Y., NJ., Pa., Ind., III., Mich., Wis., lo., Minn., Neb., 
N.D., S.D., Mon., Wy., Ida., Md., Va., W. Va., Ky., Tenti., Mo., Ark., Tex., Cal., Ore., 

* Except resolutions for amending the Constitution. 

[215] 



2i6 Veto Power: — State Constitutions. [App. E 

Wash., Nev., Col., S.C, Ala., Miss., Fla., La., — 38 States. Ariz., N.Mex., Utah, — 
3 Territories. 

7. Return to the lovrer House. 

In one State the bill or resolution is to be returned to the House of Representatives : 
Kan., — I State. 

8. Veto of items in appropriation bills. 

In the following States the governor may veto certain items in an appropriation bill^ 
and allow others to become a law: — N.Y., N.J., Pa., Minn., Neb., N.D., S.D., Mon.^ 
Wy., Ida., W.Va., Mo., Ark., Tex., Cal, Col, Ga., Ala., Fla., La.,— 20 States. 

9. No veto of items in appropriation bills. 

In the following States there is no power to veto parts of bills: — N.H., Mass., Me.,. 
Vt., Conn., Ind., III., Mich., Wis., lo., Kan., Aid., Va., Ky., Tenn., Ore., Wash., Nev.^ 
S. C, Miss., — 20 States. 

10. No veto power. 

In the following States there is no provision for revision of a bill by the governor : — 
R.L, 0., Del., MC., — 4 States. 

PASSING LEGISLATION OVER THE VETO. 

11. Majority vote. 

A vetoed bill shall become law if it receive, on reconsideration, an ordinary majority 
vote in : — Cl., Vt., — 2 States. 

12. Majority of all the members elected. 

In the following States a majority of all the elected members of each House is 
required : — N.y., Ind., W. Va., Ky., Tenn., Ark., Ala., — 7 States. 

13. Three-fifths of the elected members. 

In the following States a vote of three-fifths of the elected members of each House 
is required : — Neb., Md., — 2 States. 

14. Two-thirds of the members present. 

In the following States and Territories a vote of two-thirds of the members present in 
each House is requisite : — N.H., Mass., Me., Wis., Minn., S.D., Mon., Ida., Va., Tex., 
Ore., S.C, Ga., Miss., Fla., — 15 States. N.Alex., Ariz., Utah, — 3 Territories. 

15. Two-thirds of the elected members. 

In the following States and Territories a vote of two-thirds of the elected members of 
each House is requisite: — N. Y., Pa., III., Mich., lo., Kan., N.D., Wy., Cal., Nev., Col., 
La., Wash., — 13 States. 

16. Two-thirds of elected members in originating House, and a major- 
ity in the other House. 

A vote of two-thirds of the elected members of the House in which the proposition 
originated, and of a majority in the other House, is required in Mo., — I State. 

17. No reconsideration. 

In the following States the proposition is not submitted to the governor and hence 
is not subject to reconsideration: — R.L, O., Del., N.C., — 4 States. 

ENTRY IN THE JOURNALS. 

18. Entry required. 

In case of reconsideration, the votes must be entered on the Journal in the following 
States : — N.H., Mass., Me., Vt., Ct., N. Y., N.J., Pa., III., Mich., Wis., Minn., Neb.„ 



Nos. 7-30.] Detailed Provisions. 21/ 

N.D., S.D., Moil., Wy., Ida., Md., Fa., IV. Va., Ky., Tenn., Mo., Ark., Tex., Ore, Nev.^ 
Col, S.C., Ala., Miss., Fla., La., Wash., — i^ States. 

19. Entry not required. 

In the following States, in which a veto may be overridden by a sufficient vote, there 
is no requirement that the veto be entered in the Journals : — Ind., lo., Kan., Cal., — 
4 States. 

20. Veto not submitted. 

In one State no statement of reasons is required : — Ga., — i State. 

21. No reconsideration. 

In the following States there is no veto, and hence no reconsideration to be entered : — 
R.I., 0., Del., JV.C., — 4 States. 

LEGISLATION NOTWITHSTANDING THE WITHHOLDING OF THE 
GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE. 

22. Signature in no case required. 

In the following States bills become law without submission to the governor : — I?.I., 
Del., C, A^.C., — 4 States. 

23. Kept three days without returning. 

In the following States and Territories, if the proposition be kept by the governor 
three days without returning it, it will become a law, without his signature : — Cl.,* 
Ind.,* ms.,* lo.,* Minn.,* Kan.,* N.D.,* S.D.,* Wy.,* ^S-C.,— lo States. Utah^ 
N.Mex., — 2 Territories. 

24. Kept five days ■without returning. 

In the following States the same principle applies if it be kept five days : — N.H.y 
Mass., Ale.,* Vt.,* N.J.,* Neb.* Man.,* Va.,* W. Va.,* Tenn.,* Ark.,* Ore.,* Wash.,* 
Nev.,* Ga.,* Ala.,* Miss.,* Fla.,* Z«.,— 19 States. 

25. Kept six days without returning. 

In the following States the same principle applies if the proposition be kept for six. 
days : — Md.,* — i State. 

26. Kept ten days without returning. 

In the following States and Territories the same principle applies, if the proposition 
be kept for ten days : — N. Y.,* Pa., III.,* Mich.,* Ida., Ky.,* Mo., Tex.,* Cal.,* Col.y 
— 9 States. Ariz., — i Territory. 

EFFECT OF ADJOURNMENT ON THE TIME LIMIT. 

27. Operation of the time rule prevented. 

In the following States and Territories, if the legislature adjourn before the time 
respectively limited above, the bill does not become law : — N.H., Mass., Vt., Ct., N. Y., 
Neb., Mich., Ore., lo., Minn., Kan., Md., Va., Tenn., Cal., S.C., Ga., Ala., La., — 
19 States. N.Alex., Ariz., Utah, — 3 Territories. 

28. Bills not to be presented within two days of adjournment. 

In Ind., — I State. 

29. Bills not to be presented w^ithin three days of adjournment. 

In Vt., — I State. 

30. Objections to be filed if not approved. 

In Mon., — I State. 

* Sundays excepted. 



21 8 Veto Power: — State Constitutions. App. E 

31. La-w unless the bill is returned -with objections -within five days 
after adjournment. 

In Ind., Neb., W. Va., Ore.* — 4 States. 

32. Law unless returned -within ten days after adjournment. 
///., S.D., Ida., Wash., Fla., — ^ States. 

33. La-w unless returned -within fifteen days after adjournment. 
N.D., Wy.,* — 2 States. 

34. La-w imless returned -within t-wenty days after adjournment. 
Ark., Tex., — 2 States. 

35. La-w unless returned -within thirty days after adjournment. 
N.J.,* Pa., Mo., Col., — 4 States. 

36. La-w unless returned within three days after the next meeting of 
the legislature. 

Me., Ky., Miss., — 3 States. 

SIGNATURE OF THE GOVERNOR AFTER ADJOURNMENT. 

37. Within ten days after adjournment. 

A proposition becomes law if returned and signed by the governor within ten days 
after the adjournment of the legislature in Cal.,* — i State. 

38. Within fifteen days after adjournment. 

The governor may sign a bill at any time within fifteen days after adjournment in 
Man., — I State. 

39. Within thirty days after adjournment. 

The governor may sign bills at any time within thirty days after the final adjourn- 
ment in N. Y., lo., — 2 States. 

40. Within t-wo days after the next meeting. 

The governor may still sign the bill at any time up to two days after the beginning of 
the next meeting of the legislature in S.C., — i State. 

41. Bills passed in last five days signed -within five days after adjourn- 
ment. 

Such bills still become law in Mich., — i State. 

42. Passed in last three days signed -within three days. 

Such bills become law in Miiitt., — i State. 

43. No provision for signature after adjournment. 

In the following States there is no provision for signature by the governor after a final 
adjournment:— TV.iT;, Mass., Me., Vt., R.I., Ct., N.J., Pa., O., Ind., III., Wis., Kan., 
Neb., N.D., S.D.. Id., Wy., Md., Del, Va., W.Va., N.C., Ky., Tenn., Mo., Ark., Tex., 
Ore., Wash., Nev., Col., Ga., Ala., Miss., Fla., La.,— 37 States. Utah, N.Mex., Ariz., 
• — 3 Territories. 

VETO BY ANOTHER LEGISLATURE. 

44. Congressional revie-wr of territorial legislation. 

The laws of the following Territories are to be submitted to Congress, and, if disap- 
proved, shall be void : — Utah, N.Alex., Ariz., — 3 Territories. 

* Sundays excepted. 



APPENDIX F. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE VETO POWER. 

In this list are included the full title of all works to which reference is made in the 
monograph; and also some titles of books and articles relating to the veto, though con- 
taining nothing not found elsewhere. With the exception of an article by Governor 
Long and some brief discussions in Von Hoist, Pomeroy, Cooley and other commentators 
on the Constitution, the author has found no secondary authorities of value. Mr. Benton's 
Veto Power, which is almost the only formal treatise on the subject, is an ex parie argu- 
ment on the application of the veto to a particular case. The debates in Congress, 
reports of Committees, and the veto messages themselves have been the only safe guides. 

Adams, Henry. History of the United States during the First Administration of 
Thomas Jefferson. 2 vols. New York, 1889. 

American Historical Association. Papers. 3 vols. New York and London, 
1886-1889. 

American "Whig Review. The Veto Power (x, 1 1 1 ) . 

Arnold, S. G. History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 
New York, 1859. 

Bagehot, "Walter. The English Constitution. London, 1867. 

Bancroft, George. History of the United States of America (last revision). 6 vols. 
New York, 1883. 

Bateman, William O. Political and Constitutional Law of the United States of 
America. St. Louis, 1876. 

Benton, T. H. Thirty Years' View ; or, A History of the Working of the American 
Government for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850. 2 vols. New York, 1854. 

Benton, J. H., Jr. The Veto Power. Boston, 1889. 

Blaine, James G. Twenty Years of Congress : From Lincoln to Garfield. 2 vols. 
Norwich, 1884. 

Bolles, A. S. The Financial History of the United States, from 1774 to 1789. 3 vols. 
New York, 1879-1886. 

Bright, J. F. History of England. 3 vols. London, 1887. 

Bryce, James. The American Commonwealth. 3 vols. London, 1889. 

Callender, E. B. Thaddeus Stevens, Commoner. Boston, 1882. 

Conkling, Alfred. The Powers of the Executive Department of the Government 
of the United States and the Political Institutions and Constitutional Law of the United 
States. Albany, N. Y., 1882. 

Conkling, F. A. Abuses of the Veto Power. Tke Forum, Jan. 1890, viii. No. 5. 

Conway, M. D. Our King in a Dress Coat. North Am. Review, Mar. 1887. 

Cooley, Thomas M. The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United 
States of America. Boston, 1880. 

Curtis, G. T. History of the Origin, Formation and Adoption of the Constitution 
of the United States. 2 vols. New York, i860. 

[219] 



220 Veto Poiver: — Bibliography. App, F 

Curtis, G. T. Life of James Buchanan. 2 vols. New York, 1883. 

Davis, Horace. American Constitutions. Johns Hopkins University Studies, 
Third Series, Nos. ix-x. Baltimore, 1885. 

Democratic Review. The Veto Power (xxiv, 14; xxviii, 243, xxxvi, 35). 

Desty, Robert. The Constitution of the United States, with Notes. San Francisco, 
1887. 

Elliot, Jonathan. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption 
of the Federal Constitution. 5 vols. Washington, 1836. 

Freeman, E. A. The Growth of the English Constitution. London, 1876. 

Hallam, Henry. Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry 
VII. to the Death of George II. 3 vols. New York, 1869. 

Hamilton, J. C. Life of Alexander Hamilton : A History of the United States of 
America as traced in his Writings and in those of his Contemporaries. 7 vols. Boston, 
1879. 

Hart, Albert Bushnell. The Disposition of our Public Lands. Quarterly Jour- 
nal of Economics, Jan. 1887, i, 169-183, 251-254. 

Hearn, "W. E. The Government of England; its Structure and Development. Lon- 
don, 1867. 

Hildreth, Richard. The History of the United States of America from the Dis- 
covery of the Continent to the Organization of the Government under the Federal 
Constitution. First Series. 3 vols. New York, 1849. 

Howell, T. B. A complete collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High 
Treason from the earliest period to the year 1783. London, 1816. 

Jameson, J. A. A Treatise on Constitutional Conventions; their History, Powers, 
and Modes of Proceeding. Chicago, 1887. 

Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Edited by H. A. Wash- 
ington. 7 vols. Washington, 1853. 

Johnston, Alexander. History of American Politics. New York, 1886. 

Laughlin, J. Lawrence. Principles of Political Economy, by John Stuart Mill. 
New York, 1885. 

Laughlin, J. Lawrence. Influence of the Presidents of the United States on Legis- 
lation. Atlantic Monthly, Iv, 826. 

Lawrence, W. B. Elements of International Law, by Henry Wheaton. Boston, 1863. 

Long, John D. The Use and Abuse of the Veto Power. The Forum, Nov. 
1887, iv, No. 3. 

McPherson, Edward. The Pohtical History of the United States during the period 
of Reconstruction. Washington, 1871. 

Madison, James. Letters and Other Writings. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 1865. 

Madison, James. Papers of James Madison, being his Correspondence and Reports 
of Debates. 3 vols. Washington, 1840. 

Mason, E. C. A Defense of the Veto Power. Forum, July, 1890, ix. No. 5. 

Massachusetts Historical Society. Proceedings for December, 1889, and Janu- 
ary, 1890. 

New York. Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, Procured in 
Holland, England, and France by J. R. Brodhead, Agent. Albany, 1856. 

National Quarterly. The President's Veto in 1866 (xii, 296). 

Niles' National Register. The Veto Power (xxxviii, 371; xlviii, 69). 

Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England. From the Earliest 
Times to the Restoration of King Charles II. London, 1762. 

Parton, James. Life of Andrew Jackson. 3 vols. New York, i860. 



Bibliography. 221 

Pomeroy, J. W. An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States. 
Boston and New York, 1888. 

Poore, Ben Perley. The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and 
Other Organic Laws of the United States. 2 vols. Washington, 1877. 

Quincy, Josiah. History of Harvard University. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1840. 

Salmon, Lucy M. History of the Appointing Power of the President. Papers of 
the American Historical Associatio7i, I, No. 5. 

Sato, Shosuki. History of the Land Question in the United States. Johns Hopkins 
University Studies, Fourth Series, Nos. vii-viii-ix. 

Sohouler, James. History of the United States of America under the Constitution. 
4 vols. Washington, 1880-1889. 

Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a 
preliminary review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the 
Adoption of the Constitution. 3 vols. Boston, 1833. 

Story, William. Life and Letters of Joseph Story. Edited by his son William 
Story. 2 vols. Boston, 185 1. 

Stubbs, 'William. Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional 
History. Oxford, 1876. 

Sumner, W. G. Andrew Jackson as a Public Man. American Statesman Series. 
Boston, 1882. 

Tacitus. De Moribus Germanise. 

Taswell-Langmead, T. P. English Constitutional History from the Teutonic Con- 
quest to the Present Time. London and Boston, 1881. 

United States. Annals of Congress (i 789-1 823). 

United States. Congressional Debates (1823-1837). 

U.nited States. Congressional Globe (1833- 1873). 

United States. Congressional Record (1873-1889). 

United States. Journals of the Senate and House of Representatives (1789-1889). 

United States. Revised Statutes of the United States. Washington, 1878. 

United States. Veto Messages of Presidents of the United States, with the action 
of Congress thereon. Compiled by order of the Senate by Ben Perley Poore, clerk of 
Printing Records. Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 49 Cong. 2 sess., No. 53. 

United States. Views of the Minority of the Committee on Bills S 465, 549, 739, 
S09, 820, 838, 1237, and the veto messages thereon. Senate Reports, 50 Cong, i sess., 
No. 1667. 

United States. The Statutes at Large of the United States (i 789-1889). 

United States. Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of 
America and other Powers since July 4, 1776. Washington, 1873. 

Von Hoist, H. Constitutional and Political History of the United States. 6 vols. 
Chicago, 1877-1889. 

Von Hoist, H. The Constitutional Law of the United States of America. Chicago, 
1887. 

Von Hoist, H. John C. Calhoun. American Statesman Series. Boston, 1882. 

Webster, Daniel. Works. 6 vols. Boston, 1851. 

Williams, EdvT-in. The Statesman's Manual. 4 vols. New York, 1854. 

Wilson, Henry. History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America. 
3 vols. Boston, 1877. 



INDEX. 



ADAMS, JOHN, legislative activity, 
214. 

Adams, John Quincy, legislative activ- 
ity, 214; report on revenue act of 1842, 
70. 

Alexandria, establishment of church, 53, 
142 (No. 3). 

Allentown, Pa., public building at, 105, 188 
(No. 294). 

American colonies, veto in, 17. 

Anderson, Mrs. M., pension to, 172 (No. 
184). 

Anderson, Sarah E., pension to, 198 (No. 
368). 

Anne, Queen, last English veto, 16. 

Appropriations, army, 47, 1 62 (No. 1 20) ; 
civil, 47, 163 (No. 122). 

Army, reduction of, 142 (No. 2) ; medical 
officers for, 108, 151 (No. 51); bounties 
to soldiers, 108, 155 (No. 75); appro- 
priations, 47, 162 (No. 120). 

Arner, Philip, pension to, 172 (No. 181). 

Arthur, Chester Alan, Fitz-John Por- 
ter, 43, 86; Chinese, 58; ocean steam- 
ships, 94; river and harbor, 104; reasons 
for vetoes, 127; attempt to enlarge the 
veto power, 138; list of vetoes, 164, 165; 
legislative activity, 214. 

Articles of Confederation, 19. 

Ashville, N. C, public building at, 105, 179 
(No. 235). 

Ayers, Edward, pension to, 166 (No. 141). 

BABERICK, CATHERINE, pension 

to, 204 (No. 413). 
Baker, J. W., relief of children of, 85, 156 

(No. 80). 
Ball, Farnaren, pension to, 189 (No. 306). 
Ballier, John F., pension to, 194 (No. 340). 
Baney, Tobias, pension to, 193 (No. 338). 



Banghani, Mrs. E. C, pension to, 167 

(No. 149). 
Bank charter vetoes, 32, 74; Second United 
States Bank, 74, 143 (No. 7) ; renewing 
charter, 75, 144 (No. 14) ; Fiscal Bank, 

76, 145 (No. 22); Fiscal Corporation, 

77, 145 (No. 23). 

Bank notes in D. C, 79, 15 1 (No. 50). 

Bar Harbor, Me., public building at, 105, 
190 (No. 313). 

Barnes, Mrs. R., pension to, 180 (No. 241). 

Barnes, Rachel, pension to, 196 (No. 353). 

Barnes, W., pension to, 206 (No. 428). 

Bash, Major D. N., rehef of, 186 (No. 282). 

Bass, H. v., pension to, 206 (No. 429). 

Bayard, James A., on second reconsidera- 
tion of veto, 121. 

Baylor, J. R., pension to, 183 (No. 260). 

Beck, W. H., pension to, 170 (No. 1 71). 

Beezeley, Mrs. L. C, pension to, 173 (No. 

195)- 
Belding, H. K., relief of, 181 (No. 250). 
Bennett, R. K., pension to, 182 (No. 254). 
Benton, Jr., J. H., reasons for veto, 114. 
Best, J. M., relief of, 156 (No. 84). 
Bishop, William, pension to, 91, 171 (No, 

177)- 
Blazer, Dolly, pension to, 191 (No. 319). 
Bloomer, E. J., pension to, 160 (No. 104). 
Bodies for dissection, 60, 165 (No. 135). 
Boon, Clark, pension to, 174 (No. 200). 
Boone, W., pension to, 175 (No. 209). 
Botts, John Minor, influence on Tyler's 

veto, 77. 
Bradley, Mrs. S. A., pension to, 178 (No. 

229). 
Bradshaw, W. S., pension to, 201 (No. 

392). 
Branch, D. B., pension to, 166 (No. 143). 
Brimmer, W. H., pension to, 186 (No. 286). 



[223] 



224 



Veto Power: — Index. 



Brock, M. W., relief of, 159 (No. loi), 

Brokenshaw, W. H., pension to, 186 (No. 
283). 

Brown, Van Buren, relief of, 193 (No. 335). 

Bryant, J. S., pension to, 199 (No. 375). 

Buchanan, James, protest against Co- 
vode investigation, 45, 208 (No. 4) ; land 
grant, 62; homesteads, 63; internal im- 
provements, 103, io6; sig-^jng constitu- 
tional amendments, 118 j reasons for 
-vetoes, 127; list of vetoes, 149, 150; 
legislative activity, 214. 

Bundy, M. L., pension to, 175 (No. 210). 

Burlingame, Anson, Chinese treaty, 58. 

Burnett, John D., appointment to office, 41. 

Burr, Elizabeth, pension to, 191 (No. 320). 

Burritt, L., pension to, 184 (No. 270). 

Burtch, A., relief of, 158 (No. 94). 

Burtram, B. A., pension to, 197 (No. 365). 

Bussey, Catherine, pension to, 199 (No. 

381)- 
Butler, J., pension to, 171 (No. 175). 
Butterfield, Mrs. Anna, pension to, 195 

(No. 348). 

CALHOUN, J. C, on adjournment of 
Congress, 27; on internal improvements, 

95- 
Campbell, Jesse, pension to, 182 (No. 258). 
Campbell, Jr., William M., pension to, 193 

(No. 333). 
Carlin, Bernard, pension to, 196 (No. 358). 
Carpenter, W. S., relief of, 198 (No. 372). 
Carr, Mary A., pension to, 202 (No. 404). 
Carroll, Bridget, pension to, 204 (No. 415). 
Carroll, J., pension to, 177 (No. 222). 
Chamberlain, C. H., relief of, 203 (No. 411), 
Champlain, bridge across Lake, 109, 179 

(No. 236). 
Chandler, J. C, pension to, 166 (No. 142). 
Charles I., vetoes, 13, 16. 
Chase, C. A., pension to, 174 (No. 202). 
Chase, N. D., pension to, 193 (No. 336). 
China, treaties with, 58. 
Chinese immigration, 58, 162 (No. 119); 

164 (No. 129). 
Clay, Henry, 26; on right of the speaker 

to v£)te, 95; on pocket vetoes, 113. 
Clayton, 27. 
Cleveland, Grover, removals from office. 



41; Indians, 56, 57; bodies for dissec- 
tion, 60; Des Moines River lands, 64, 
66; Castle Island Park, 65; land grant 
to Tacoma, W. T., 65; land grant to 
Kansas, 66; Fort Wallace Reservation, 
66; refunding the direct tax, 73; De- 
pendent Pension Bill, 89; pension pol- 
icy, 90; Springfield a port of delivery, 
94; public buildings, 105; Texas Seed 
Bill, 107; Omaha a port of delivery, 
109; bridge across Lake Champlain, 109; 
United States map for 1886, no; neg- 
lect of reconsideration, 122; bills passed 
over the veto in one house, 125; rea- 
sons for vetoes, 128, 130; effect on par- 
ties, 131 ; prevention of unwise measures, 
I32> '^IsV^ indirect influence on legisla- 
tion through veto, 133 ; list of vetoes, 
165-207; legislative activity, 214. 

Coleman, William, 142 (No. 4). 

Collins, Major J. C, relief of, 163 (No. 
124). 

Columbia, District of, 29; vetoes affecting, 
59; recording in, 29, 159 (No. 100); 
paving Pennsylvania Avenue, 59, 160 
(No. 107) ; police commissioners, 60, 
161 (No. III). 

Columbus, Ga., public building at, 105, 190 
(No. 312). 

Colwell, George, pension to, 207 (No. 
432). 

Confederate States of America, veto in, 
119, 125, 126, 130, 136; chronological 
list of vetoes, 210-213. 

Congress, Form, 25 ; regulation of session, 
26, 30, 145 (No. 20). 

Connecticut, 17, 18. 

Connelly, Julia, pension to, 173 (No. 193). 

Contractors, relief of, 155 (No. 77). 

Cooper, Charles, relief of, 155 (No. 76). 

Cooper, Harriet E., pension to, 193 (No. 

334)- 
Corson, Sarah A., pension to, 195 (No. 

350- 
Cotton, J. D., pension to, 172 (No, 182). 
Council Bluffs, Iowa, 105, 190 (No. 314). 
Courts, trials in district, 27, 142 (No. 5) ; 

new trial in court of claims, 28, 157 (No. 

87) ; special term in Mississippi, 29, 162 

(No. 118). 



Brock — Godfrey. 



225 



Covode investigation, 45, 208 (No. 4). 
Crawford, R. B., pension to, 156 (No. 82). 
Cunningham, Maria, pension to, 177 (No. 

224). 
Currency and coinage, 78; inflation of 

currency, 80, 158 (No. 92) ; Bland Silver 

Bill, 81, 162 (No. 117). 
Curtin, Mary, pension to, 197 (No. 363). 
Cutler, G. W., pensirn to, 180 (No. 245). 

DARLING, J. H., pension to, 174 (No. 

201). 
Dauper, John, pension to, 202 (No. 399). 
Davis, Jefferson, vetoes as president of the 

Confederate States, 210-213. 
Davis- Wade Bill, 208 (No. 5). 
Dayton, O., public building at, 105, 179 

(No. 234). 
Dean, John, pension to, 199 (No. 378). 
Debt, refunding the national, 78, 164 (No. 

128). 
Deck, Amanda F., pension to, 194 (No. 

339)- 
De Krafft, Elizabeth S., pension to, 90, 170 

(No. 168). 
Denning, F., pension to, 177 (No. 220). 
Denniston, W. H., reUef of, 158 (No. 91). 
Denny, Alfred, pension to, 170 (No. 170). 
Dependent Pension Bill, 89, 183 (No. 261). 
Dermody, W., pension to, 177 (No. 218). 
Des Moines River lands, settlers' titles to, 

64, 66, 165 (No. 134); 206 (No. 425). 
De Witt, Hannah C, 186 (No. 284). 
Dickens, W., pension to, 181 (No. 248). 
Diplomatic congratulations, 39, 161 (No. 

112). 
Doane, R. L., pension to, 199 (No. 377). 
Dougherty, Mary Ann, pension to, 192 

(No. 330). 
Dow, Mrs. J., pension to, 180 (No. 240). 
Drake, Mary I., pension to, 204 (No. 412). 
Duluth, public building at, 105, 178 (No. 

227). 
Dunlap, Margaret, pension to, 181 (No. 

251)- 
Dustin, George M., removal from office, 
41. 

EAST TENNESSEE UNIVER- 
SITY, relief of, 157 (No. 88). 



Eaton, Lydia A., pension to, 202 (No. 

398). 
Edward III, 13, 14. 

Edwards & Co., relief of, 150 (No. 47). 
Elderkin, D. T., pension to, 172 (No. 185). 
Eldridge, Mrs. R., pension to, 167 (No. 

148). 
Elections, testimony in contested, 28, 146 

(No. 27); interference, 46, note 3, 162 

(No. 121). 
England, early legislative power, 12, 13; 

veto, 14; disappearance of the veto, 15. 
Errors, correction of clerical, 109, 151 (No. 

52). 
Esty, C. J., pension to, 205 (No. 424) . 
Evans, Mrs. F. E., pension to, 178 (No. 

228). 
Executive departments, advertising of, 35, 

note 2, 161 (No. 115). 

FALCONER, A., pension to, 181 (No. 

252). 
Farris, J. W., pension to, 169 (No. 165). 
Federal Convention, 20. 
Fincher, J. D., pension to, 184 (No. 267). 
Fitzmorris, Mary, relief of, 193 (No. 337). 
Foley, Bridget, pension to, 194 (No. 344). 
Forbes, Duncan, pension to, 180 (No. 242). 
Franklin, Benjamin, 18, 21. 
French spoliation claims, 83, 147 (No. 32) ; 

84, 148 (No. 36). 

GARCIA, MANUEL, pension to, 195 

(No. 352). 

Garfield, James A., on closing consular 
offices, 38; reasons for failure to- veto, 
127. 

Garrett, Eli, pension to, 205 (No. 419). 

Gaven, Ester, pension to, 202 (No. 400). 

Geddes, C. W., relief of, 204 (No. 414). 

Georgia, State of, signing bill after adjourn- 
ment of Congress, 116. 

Germany, early legislative power, 11, 

Gerry, Elbridge, Federal Convention, 21. 

Gilmer, Thomas W., Revenue Act of 1842, 
70. 

Glamann, Charles, pension to, 192 (No. 
326). 

Glass, Eliza S., pension to, 203 (No. 405). 

Godfrey, E. J., pension to, 199 (No. 376). 



226 



Veto Power: — Index. 



Goldsborough, Robert H., 27. 

Grant, Ulysses S., Court of Claims, 28; 
recording in District of Columbia, 29; 
advertising of executive departments, 35, 
note 2; consular offices, 37; Indians, 
55; paving in District of Columbia, 59; 
police commissioners in District of Co- 
lumbia, 60 ; homestead entries, 64 ; 
diplomatic intercourse, 39; President's 
salary, 45; Inflation Bill, 80; internal im- 
provements, 104, note 2; refusal to carry 
out a bill, 103; bounties to soldiers, 108; 
protest, blankets for reform school, 109, 
209 (No. 9); post-office statutes, 109; 
right to recall a veto, 118; neglect of 
reconsideration, 122; reasons for vetoes, 
128; effect on parties, 131; prevention 
of unwise measures, 132; River and 
Harbor Bill, 104, 209 (No. 7); Diplo- 
matic Bill, 37, 209 (No. 8) ; list of 
vetoes, 155-162; legislative activity, 214. 

Griggs, A. P., pension to, 182 (No. 256). 

Grisvk'old, Elisha, rehef of, 190 (No. 311). 

Guyse, G. W., pension to, 172 (No. 186). 

HAGBRMAN, MRS. M. J., pension 

to, 180 (No. 239). 
Ham, J. D., pension to, 166 (No. 144). 
Hamilton, Alexander, Federal Convention, 

21; the veto in 1789, 139. 
Hamilton, D. W., pension to, 167 (No. 145). 
Hamilton, Mrs. Sarah, pension to, 185 

(No. 247). 
Hand, Mrs. Ellen, pension to, 205 (No. 

418). 
Hanks, Dr. John F., relief of estate of, 

156 (No. 78). 
Hannegan, John, relief of, 155 (No. 76). 
Hannegan, William, relief of, 155 (No. 76). 
Harbaugh, Mrs. S., pension to, 174 (No. 

197)- 
Harden, S. W., pension to, 167 (No. 150). 
Hardy, Lieut. J. G. W., relief of, 191 (No. 

324)- 
Harkins, Mary F., pension to, 191 (No. 

322). 
Harrington, E. M., pension to, 178 (No. 

231)- 
Harrison, W. H., reason for failure to 
veto, 127. 



Hayes, Rutherford B,, special term of 
court, 29; riders, 46, note 3, 47; Chi- 
nese, 58; refunding the national debt, 
78; Bland Silver Bill, 81; failure to 
enter veto message in journal, 122; 
reasons for vetoes, 128; prevention of 
unwise measures, 132, 133; vetoes which 
have failed, 134; attempt to enlarge the 
veto power, 137; protest, fees of United 
States marshals, 209 (No. 10) ; list of 
vetoes, 162-164; legislative activity, 214. 

Hawes, Susan, pension to, 180 (No. 246), 

Hawley, G. C, pension to, 173 (No. 188). 

Haworth, J. D., pension to, 167 (No. 147). 

Heckler, Elizabeth, pension to, 202 (No. 

403)- 

Heiny, Lydia A., pension to, 196 (No. 356). 

Hensley, E. P., pension to, 170 (No. 166). 

Herbst, Theresa, pension to, 194 (No. 343). 

Hester, W. H., pension to, 188 (No. 301). 

Hiar, R. J., pension to, 189 (No. 302). 

Hill, A. J., pension to, 166 (No. 138). 

Hill, J. A., relief of, 158 (No. 97). 

Hinely, Louis, pension to, 158 (No. 95). 

Hippie, Jr., H., pension to, 169 (No. 164). 

Hockaday, relief of, 150 (No. 49). 

Holman, William S., closing consular of- 
fices, 38. 

Holsey, Robert, pension to, 171 (No. 176). 

Hopkins, T. S., pension to, 168 (No. 156). 

Hooper, Mary, pension to, 202 (No. 401), 

Houchin, W. M., pension to, 194 (No. 
342). 

How, John, relief of, 184 (No. 272). 

Hoxey, Mary M., pension to, 191 (No. 

323)- 
Hunter, J., pension to, 169 (No. 159). 
Hunter, Mrs. Maria, pension to, 174 (No, 

196). 
Hutchins, Waldo, attempt t© enlarge the 

veto power, 138. 

ILLINOIS, signing bill after adjourn- 
ment of Congress, 116. 

Indians, 54; Cherokee award, 55, 146 
(No. 28); custody of trust funds, 55, 
158 (No. 96); sale of lands, 55, 160 
(No. 108); 56, 187 (No. 293); right of 
way for railroad, 57, 178 (No. 232); 194 
(No. 345). 



GoldsborougJi — Leggit. 



227 



Indian Territory, 57. 

Ingersoll, Charles J., Revenue Act of 1842, 
70. 

Internal improvements, general view, 105; 
Bonus Bill, 94, 143 (No. 8); Cumber- 
land Road, 96, 143 (No, 9) ; Maysville 
Road, 97, 143 (No. 10) ; turnpike stock, 
97, 143 (No. 11); light-houses and bea- 
cons, 97, 144 (No. 12); canal stock, 
97, 144 (No. 13); river and harbor, 
144 (No. 16); Wabash River, 97, 145 
(No. 18); rivers and harbors, 99, 147 
(No. 29); rivers and harbors, 10®, 147 
(No. 31); Territory of Wisconsin, 100, 
147 (No. 33); completion of works, 
lOi, 148 (No. 35); Mississippi River, 
loi, 148 (No. 38); Saint Clair Flats, 
lOl, 149 (No. 39); Saint Mary's River, 
loi, 149 (No. 40) ; Des Moines Rapids, 
101, 149 (No. 41); Patapsco River, loi, 

149 (No. 42); Saint Clair Flats, 103, 

150 (No. 45); Mississippi River, 103, 
150 (No. 46); appropriations for sala- 
ries, 103, 159 (No. 102); rivers and 
harbors, 104, 164 (No. 131); 104, 209 
(No. 7). 

Irwin, J. T., pension to, 176 (No. 213). 

JACKSON, ANDREW, session of 
Congress, 26, 30; bank veto, 32; treaty 
with the Two Sicilies, 36; proceeds of 
public land sales, 60; interest on state 
claims, 73; bank veto, 75; funds receiv- 
able for United States revenues, 79; in- 
ternal improvements, 96, 106; reasons 
for vetoes, 127, 129; effect on parties, 
131 ; prevention of unwise measures, 
133 ; protest against censure by the 
Senate, -^Ty, 208 (No. i); list of vetoes, 
143-145; legislative activity, 214. 

Jacoby, Mrs. M. A., pension to, 176 (No. 
215). 

James I, 13. 

Jefferson, Thomas, 26; reason for failure 
to veto, 126; legislative activity, 214. 

Jenckes, Thomas A., tenure of office, 43. 

Jennings, Nancy F., pension to, 188 (No. 
297). 

Johnson, Andrew, Tenure of Office Act, 
42; war power, 44, 209 (No. 6); recon- 



struction vetoes,46; negro, 57, 59; pre- 
empting mineral land, 64; admission of 
Colorado, 67, 68; admission of Nebraska, 
67, 68; duty on copper, 72; bills passed 
over the veto, 125 ; effect on parties, 
131 ; prevention of unwise measures, 
132; vetoes which have failed, 134; pro- 
test against a rider, 209 (No. 6) ; list of 
vetoes, 151-155; legislative activity, 214. 

Johnson, J. T., relief of, 156 (No. 79). 

Jones, G. A., relief of, 155 (No. 76). 

Jones, Margaret R., pension to, 184 (No. 
268). 

Judiciary, form of national, 27. 

Jussen, Edmund, relief of, 157 (No. 86). 

KABLER, J. E., pension to, 197 (No. 

367). 
Kansas, 55, 56; land grant, 66, 200 (No. 

386) ; sale of Fort Wallace reservation, 

66, 200 (No, 387). 
Karstetter, Mary, pension to, 178 (No. 

226); 204 (No. 417). 
Kelley, Daniel H., relief of, 86, l6l (No. 

"3)- 
Kelly, Ellen, pension to, 202 (No. 402). 
Kent, Joseph, attempts to diminish the veto 

power, 136, 137. 
Kinney, Mrs. A., pension to, 180 (No, 

243)- 
Kirkpatrick, J. S., pension to, 175 (No. 

207). 
Kyler, H. L., pension to, 176 (No. 212). 

LA FAYETTE, IND., public building 

at, 105, 185 (No. 277). 
Lane, Henry S., Revenue Act of 1842, 71. 
Lang, Mary A., pension to, 193 (No. 332). 
Langdon, Hannah R., pension to, 186 (No. 

281). 
Lanham, S. W. J., Texas Seed Bill, 108, 
Latham, W. S., pension to, 202 (No. 397). 
Lawrence, William, closing consular offices, 

38. 
Leary, John, pension to the widow of, 197 

(No. 364). 
Leatherbury, P. A., relief of, 195 (No. 

346). 
Leese, F. J., pension to, 169 (No. 163). 
Leggit, relief of, 150 (No. 49). 



228 



Veto Power: — Index. 



Leland, Edward A., relief of, 162 (No. 
116). 

Lewis, Edwin, 142 (No. 4). 

Lewis, William J., attempts to remove the 
veto power, 136. 

Iiincoln, Abraham, bank notes in D. C, 
79; medical officers for the army, 108; 
clerical errors, 109; signing bill after 
adjournment of Congress, 115; signing 
constitutional amendments, 1 1 7 ; neglect 
of reconsideration, 122, 125; pocket 
vetoes, 126; reasons for vetoes, 127; 
prevention of unwise measures, 132; 
manifesto against Davis- Wade Bill, 208 
(No. 5); list of vetoes, 151; legislative 
activity, 214. 

Liner, Peter, pension to, 201 (No. 396). 

Lockrey, J. J., pension to, 206 (No. 426). 

Loewinger, Johanna, pension to, 190 (No. 

315)- 
Loomis, A. F., pension to, 176 (No. 211). 
Lounsberry, C. A., relief of, 198 (No. 373). 
Luce, Mrs. E., pension to, 170 (No. 167). 
Luckett, E. H., relief of, 159 (No. 98). 
Lutman, D. H., pension to, 198 (No. 369). 
Lynch, W., pension to, 181 (No. 253). 
Lynn, Mass., public building at, 105, 184 

(No. 273). 

McBLAIR, J. H., relief of, 165 (No. 

133)- 
McCaleb, Sarah E., relief of, 189 (No. 

305)- 

McCarty, Mrs. C, pension to, 178 (No. 
230). 

McCool, John, pension to, 206 (No. 427). 

McCullah, J. A., relief of, 157 (No. 89). 

Mcllwain, Mrs. M., pension to, 174 (No. 
199). 

McKay, E., pension to, 176 (No. 217). 

McKay, Nathaniel, relief of, 185 (No. 278). 

McRobertson, A., pension to, 184 (No. 
269). 

Maddox, Laura E., relief of, 200 (No. 388). 

Madison, James, Federal Convention, 
20, 21, 22; appointing judges, 28; tenure 
of office, 43; church and state, 53, 54, 
60; naturalization, 54, 59; bank veto, 
74 ; internal improvements, 94, 105 ; 
pocket vetoes, 125; reasons for vetoes. 



127, 129; effect on parties, 131; pre- 
vention of unwise measures, 132, 133; 
list of vetoes, 142, 143; legislative ac- 
tivity, 214. 

Mails, subsidy for ocean, 148 (No. 37); 
overland, 35, note 2; 149 (No. 43); 
post-office statutes, 109, 160 (No. 105). 

Mansfield, Betsey, pension to, 186 (No. 
280). 

Mantor, M. T., pension to, 186 (No. 285). 

Maphet, C. T., pension to, 199 (No. 379). 

Marchand, Mrs. M. D., pension to, 168 
(No. 155). 

Marion, John H., relief of, 191 (No. 316). 

Marshals, payment of United States, 47, 
163 (Nos. 123, 125, 126); 46, note 3; 164 
(No. 127). 

Martin, Elijah, relief of, 191 (No. 318). 

Maryland', 17, 18. 

Massachusetts, 16, 18. 

Mead, James R., relief of, 158 (No. 93). 

Melcher, Louis, pension to, 166 (No. 140). 

Mertz, Anna, pension to, 190 (No. 309). 

Miller, Mrs. M. A., pension to, 172 (No. 

183). 
Miller, S., pension to, 172 (No. 187). 
Mills, Emily G., relief of, 187 (No. 292). 
Mims, Sainuel, 142 (No. 4). 
Mississippi, land grant to a church in, 54, 

142 (No. 4). 
Monroe, James, internal improvements, 

95, 105 ; reasons for veto, 127, 129; 

effect on parties, 131; only veto, 141; 

legislative activity, 214. 
Monroe, J. D., pension to, 169 (No. 162). 
Montana, 56; right of way for railroad, 

57, 178 (No. 232). 
Montgomery, M. A., pension to, 156 (No. 

83)- 
Morehead, A., pension to, 176 (No. 216). 
Morhiser, W. H., pension to, 184 (No, 

271). 
Morton, J. B., relief of, 192 (No. 328). 
Myer, Capt. E. S., restoration of, 160 (No. 

106). 

NATURALIZATION, 54, 142 (No. 6). 
Nebraska, 55. 

Nevil, W. H., pension to, 177 (No. 219). 
Newhard, Jacob, pension to, 200 (No. 384). 



Leland — Quiggle. 



229 



New York, State of, signing bill after ad- 
journment of Congress, 1 1 6. 

Norman, Mrs. M., pension to, 175 (No. 
205). 

Nottage, Mrs. M. J., pension to, 170 (No. 
172). 

OBEKIAH, B., pension to, 181 (No. 

249). 
Omaha a port of delivery, 109, 165 (No. 

136). 
O'Neal, Charlotte, pension to, 183 (No. 

263). 
O'Shea, James, pension to, 92, 168 (No. 

153)- 
Owen, Mrs. A. C, pension to, 167 (No. 

146). 
Owen, Clara M., pension to, 205 (No. 

421). 

PARKER, N., pension to, 175 (No. 

208). 
Parker, P. E., relief of, 197 (No. 366). 
Parsons, Mrs. M., pension to, 171 (No. 

173)- 

Passengers, carriage of by sea, 94, 164 
(No. 130). 

Pennsylvania, 18. 

Pension vetoes, 87. 

Piatt, Mrs. T. M., pension to, 188 (No. 
296). 

Pierce, Franklin, land grant, 61 ; French 
spoliation claims, 84; internal improve- 
ments, loi, 106; what constitutes a two- 
thirds majority, 120; second reconsid- 
eration of veto, 121; bills passed over 
the veto, 125; reasons for vetoes, 127; 
list of vetoes, 147-149; legislative activ- 
ity, 214. 

Pierpont, Rachel Ann, pension to, 183 
(No. 265). 

Piggott, Michael, relief of, 203 (No. 407). 

Pilcher, J. E., relief of, 189 (No. 307). 

Pinckney, Charles, 21. 

Pitner, G. W., pension to, 196 (No. 355). 

Points, A., pension to, 180 (No. 244). 

Polk, Jataes K., French spoliation claims, 
83; internal improvements, 100, 106; 
reasons for vetoes, 127; list of vetoes, 
147; legislative activity, 214. 



Porter, Fitz-John, relief of, 43, 86, 165 (No. 
132). 

Portsmouth, O., public building at, 105, 185 
(No. 276). 

Potts, Mrs. Jane, pension to, 200 (No. 
382). 

President of the United States, methods of 
treating a bill, 24; refusal to carry out 
an act, 116; right of protest, 117; sign- 
ing constitutional amendments, 117; 
reduction of salary, 45, 159 (No. 99). 

Probert, Mrs. Anna A., pension to, 174 
(No. 198). 

Public buildings, Zanesville, O., 105, 169 
(No. 158); Duluth, Minn., 105, 178 
(No. 227); Dayton, O., 105, 179 (No. 
234) ; Asheville, N. C, 105, 179 (No. 
235); Springfield, Mo., 105, 179 (No. 
237); Lynn, Mass., 105, 184 (No. 273); 
Portsmouth, O., 105, 185 (No. 276); 
La Fayette, Ind., 105, 185 (No. 277); 
AUentown, Pa., 105, 188 (No. 294); 
Youngstown, O., 105, 189 (No. 308); 
Columbus, Ga., 105, 190 (No. 312); 
Bar Harbor, Me., 105, 190 (No. 313); 
Council Bluffs, la., 105, 190 (No. 314); 
Sioux City, la., 105, 168 (No. 157); 
198 (No. 374). 

Public lands, 60; proceeds of land sales 
(Clay's Bill), 60, 144 (No. 17); pro- 
ceeds of land sales, 61, 146 (No. 26); 
grant to indigent insane, 61, 147 (No. 
34) ; grants for agricultural colleges, 62, 
149 (No. 44); Homestead Act, 63, 150 
(No, 48) ; grant to Montana Iron Com- 
pany, 64, 152 (No. 56); surveying dis- 
trict of Montana, 64, 152 (No. 58); 
homestead entries, 64, 160 (No. no); 
titles to Des Moines River land, 64, 66, 
165 (No. 134); 206 (No. 425); Castle 
Island, Boston Harbor, 65, 188 (No. 
298) ; government purchase at Council 
Bluffs, 105, 190 (No. 314); grant to 
Tacoma, W. T., 65, 195 (No. 347) ; grant 
to Kansas, 66, 200 (No. 386) ; sale of 
Fort Wallace reservation, 66, 200 (No. 
387). 

QUIGGLE, CHLOE, pension to, 187 
(No. 288). 



230 



Veto Power: — Index. 



HAILROADS, right of way in Montana, 
57, 178 (No. 232). 

Randall, Sally A., pension to, 188 (No. 
300). 

Randolph, Edmund, Federal Convention, 
20, 21. 

Reconstruction, freedman's bureau, 46, 151 
(No. 53); civil rights, 46, 57, 151 (No. 
54) ; continuation of freedman's bureau, 
46, 152 (No. 57); suffrage in D. C, 46, 
152 (No. 59); Tenure of Office Act, 42, 
46, 152 (No. 62); Reconstruction Act, 
46, 153 (No. 63); supplemental Recon- 
struction Act, 46, 153 (Nos. 64, 65); 
joint resolution on reconstruction, 46, 153 
(No. 66) ; amending Judiciary Act, 46, 
154 (No. 67); exclusion of electoral 
votes, 46, 154 (No. 70); discontinuance 
of freedman's bureau, 46, 154 (No. 71); 
trustees of colored schools, 46, 155 (No. 
72). 

Reed, Mrs. Catherine, pension to, 200 (No. 

383)- 
Reed, John, pension to, 183 (No. 264). 
Relief bills, 85. 
Religious liberty, 53. 
Representatives, apportionment of, 142 

(No. i). 
Revenue, funds receivable for United States, 

79, 145 (No. 21); cutters and steamers, 

35, note 2; 147 (No. 30). 
Reynolds, J. W., pension to, 198 (No. 371). 
Rhode Island, 17, 18. 
Richards, Mary K., pension to, 201 (No. 

390- 
Richardson, A, C, pension to, i8l (No. 

247). 
Riddle, W. P., pension to, 196 (No. 357). 
Riders, army appropriations, 47, 162 (No. 

120); civil appropriations, 47, 163 (No. 

122); payment of marshals, 47, 163 

(Nos. 123, 125, 126). 
Robeson, John, pension to, 201 (No. 395). 
Romahn, M., pension to, 167 (No. 151). 
Romiser, J., pension to, 177 (No. 22). 
Roosevelt, James I., Revenue Act of 1842, 

70. 
Ross, D. H., pension to, 179 (No. 233). 
Rowland, Alfred, desertion of, 161 (No. 

114). 



Rowley, Jerome, relief of, 155 (No. 76). 
Rowley, Mrs. R. V., pension to, 176 (No. 

214). 
Ryan, Abigail, pension to, 156 (No. 181). 

SACKMAN, WILLIAM, Sr., pen- 
sion to, 187 (No. 289). 

Sacs and Foxes, 55. 

Salt works, relief for owners of, 157 (No. 
90). 

Sattler, Catherine, pension to, 182 (No. 

259)- 
Saxberry, Edson, rehef of, 196 (No. 359). 
Scanland, L. W., pension to, 177 (No. 223). 
Schenck, Mrs. C. R., pension to, 170 (No. 

169). 
Schenck, Robert C, duty on copper, 72; 

internal improvements, loi. 
Schiedel, Stephen, pension to, 191 (No. 

317)- 
Schuler, Charles, pension to, 173 (No. 189). 
Schultz, B., pension to, 173 (No. 194). 
Scott, C. C, pension to, 203 (No. 409). 
Seavey, S. A., pension to, 195 (No. 350). 
Senate, censure of the, 33, 208 (No. i). 
Servis, D. A., pension to, 190 (No. 310). 
Seward, W. H., second reconsideration of 

veto, 121. 
Sexton, Ellen, pension to, 192 (No. 325). 
Seyfforth, Caroline G., pension to, 196 

(No. 360). 
Shannon, Thomas, pension to, 194 (No. 

340- 

Shea, Ellen, pension to, 189 (No. 304). 

Sherman, John, reasons for vetoes, 130. 

Shong, Michael, pension to, 205 (No. 423). 

Sioux Gity, la., public building at, 105, 
168 (No. 157); 198 (No. 374). 

Smith, Abigail, pension to, 165 (No. 137). 

Smith, Eliza, pension to, 195 (No. 349). 

Smith, Jacob, pension to, 183 (No. 266). 

Smith, Polly H., pension to, 192 (No. 329). 

Smith, Virtue, pension to, 191 (No. 321). 

Snyder, John, requiring names of appli- 
cants for office, 41. 

Spencer, Jacob, relief of, 158 (No. 93). 

Springfield, Mass., a port of delivery, 166 
(No. 139). 

Springfield, Mo., public building at, 105, 
179 (No. 237). 



Railroads- — Veto. 



231 



Stapleton, R.H., pension to, 177 (No. 225). 

Starr, W. H., pension to, 175 (No. 204). 

States, the veto in, 113, 114, 118, 136; 
provisions of State Constitutions, 215- 
2i8; veto in first State Constitutions, 
18. 

States, admission of Colorado, 67, 151 
(No. 55); 68, 152 (No. 60); Nebraska, 
67, 68, 152 (No. 61); Arkansas, 46, 154 
(No. 68); Southern States, 46, 154 (No. 
69). 

State claims, interest on, 73, 144 (No. 15). 

Stevens, A. F., pension to, 168 (No. 154). 

Steward, J., pension to, 171 (No. 178). 

Stewart, William M., second reconsidera- 
tion of veto, 121. 

Still well, J. M., pension to, 200 (No. 385). 

Stone, C, pension to, 182 (No. 257). 

Stricklett, Georgia A., relief of, 188 (No. 

295)- 
Stryker, C. G., pension to, 189 (No. 303). 
Stuarts, the, 14, 15. 

Sullivan, Mary, pension to, 187 (No. 290). 
Sweet, Franklin, pension to, 182 (No. 255). 

TARIFF, 69, first Whig bill, 70, 146 
(No. 24) ; second Whig bill, 70, 146 
(No. 25); duty on copper, 72, 155 (No. 
73); Tyler's protest, 70, 208 (No. 3). 

Tax, refunding the direct, 73, 207 (No. 

433)- 

Taylor, John, pension to, 169 (No. 160). 

Taylor, Zachary, compromise of 1850, 
57; reasons for failure to veto, 127; in- 
direct influence on legislation, 133. 

Tervin, Richard, 142 (No. 4). 

Texas Seed Bill, 107, 183 (No. 262). 

Tiffany, Nelson, relief of, 159 (No. 103). 

Tiller, C. W., pension to, 169 (No. 161). 

Tillman, H., pension to, 175 (No. 203). 

Todd, Margaret B., pension to, 198 (No. 

370)- 
Travers, Mrs. A. E., pension to, 172 (No. 

180). 
Treaty power, invasion of, 49. 
Triggs, Julia, relief of, 205 (No. 420). 
Trumbull Civil Rights Bill, 57. 
Tucker, John R., closing consular offices, 

38. 
Tudors, the, 15. 



Turly, John A., relief of widow of, 192 (No. 

327)- 
Turner, Major J. T., relief of, 87, 160 (No. 

109). 
Tuttle, J. , pension to, 1 75 (No. 206) . 
Two Sicilies, treaty with, 36, 145 (No. 19). 
Two-thirds majority, what constitutes, 103, 

"9- 

Tyler, G. B., reUef of, 159 (No. 98). 

Tyler, John, taking testimony, 28; names 
of applicants for office, 40; Cherokee 
Indians, 55; proceeds of public land 
sales, 61; temporary Revenue Act, 70; 
permanent Revenue Act, 70; bank veto, 
76; fiscal corporation veto, 77; internal 
improvements, 99; second reconsidera- 
tion of veto, 121; bills passed over the 
veto, 125; reasons for vetoes, 127; effect 
on parties, 131; prevention of unwise 
measures, 133; refusal to furnish infor- 
mation, 40, 208 (No. 2); protest against 
committee report on tariff veto, 70, 208 
(No. 3); list of vetoes, 145-147; leg- 
islative activity, 214. 

UNITED STATES, additional copies 
of map, 1 10, 197 (No. 362). 

VAN BUREN, MARTIN, reason for 
failure to veto, 126. 

Van Etten, Mrs. M. A., pension to, 171 
(No. 179). 

Vest, George G., reasons for vetoes, 130. 

Veto, the, a legislative power, 112; pocket 
vetoes, 113; reasons for veto, 114; sign- 
ing bill after adjournment of Congress, 
115; signing constitutional amendments, 
117; right to recall a veto, 118; right 
of the speaker to vote on reconsideration, 
120; second reconsideration of veto, 
1 20; failure to enter veto message in 
journal, 122; neglect of reconsideration, 
122; reasons for vetoes, 126; constitu- 
tionality and expediency, 129; effect on 
parties, 131 ; prevention of unwise meas- 
ures, 132; indirect influence on legisla- 
tion, 134; vetoes which have failed, 
134; popular objections to the veto, 
135; attempts to alter the power, 136, 
137; the veto in 1789 and in 1889, 1 38. 



232 



Veto Power : — Index. 



Virginia, 17. 

Vogelsang, Mrs. Sophia, pension to, 201 

(No. 394). 

WALLACE, T, B., relief of, 157 (No. 

85)- 
Wallen, George, pension to, 204 (No. 416) 
Walsh, Thomas, pension to, 203 (No. 408) 
Walster, Charles, pension to, 199 (No. 380) 
Walter, Squire, pension to, 206 (No. 431) 
Ward, Sallie T., pension to, 196 (No. 354) 
Warner, E. W., pension to, 206 (No. 430) 
War powers, 108; Johnson's protest against 
the removal of power from the President, 
44, 209 (No. 6). 
Washington, George, apportionment, 
25, 30; reduction of the army, 108; 
reasons for vetoes, 127, 129, 130; pre- 
vention of unwise measures, 132; list of 
vetoes, 142; legislative activity, 214. 
Weaver, W. H., pension to, 179 (No. 238). 
Webster, D., 26; tenure of office, 43. 
Welch, Mrs. H., pension to, 171 (No. 174). 
Welch, Julia, pension to, 193 (No. 331). 
West, C, pension to, 173 (No. 192). 
Wheaton, Laban, church and state, 54. 
Wheaton, W. R., relief of, 203 (No. 411). 
White, J. C, pension to, 197 (No. 361). 
White, RoUin, relief of, 155 (No. 74") 



Wilbur, J. E., relief of, 201 (No. 390). 

Williams, J. S., pension to, 168 (No. 152). 

Wilson, A. J., pension to, 173 (No. 191). 

Wilson, C. B., relief of, 203 (No. 406). 

Wilson, H. B., relief of, 187 (No. 291). 

Wilson, James, 22. 

Wilson, Joseph, 142 (No. 4), 

Witt, William P., pension to, 187 (No. 

287). 
Woodbridge, Sarah A., pension to, 200 

(No. 389). 
Woodson, Mrs. M. S., pension to, 173 

(No. 190). 
Woodworth, Mary, pension to, 201 (No. 

393)- 
Worcester, F. D., pension to, 205 (No. 

422). 
Worden, L. J., relief of, 188 (No. 299). 
Wright, Anna, pension to, 185 (No. 275). 
Wright, Laura A., pension to, 185 (No. 

279). 

YAMGHBIM, E. J., pension to, 203 

(No. 410). 
Youngstown, O., public building at, 105, 

189 (No. 308). 

ZANESVILLE, O., public building at, 
105, 169 (No. 158). 



The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 

Published for HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 
Appears October i, January i, April i, and July i. 

Its primary object is to aid investigators and students, by publishing studies on Eco- 
nomic History, Criticism, Speculation, and Questions of the Day. It welcomes 
cordially any contribution of value, from whatever school of thought. 

CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV, 1889-90. 

1. OCTOBER, 1889. 

On Some Applications of the Theory of International Trade C. F. Bastable. 

The Depreciation of Farming Land • A. H. Peters. 

President Walker^ s Theory of Distribution S. N. Paiten. 

Nationalism in the United States N. P. GiLMAN. 

East London F. C. HUNTINGTON. 

Appendix : A7t Act concerning Insurance in Case of Disability and Old Age (Germany) . 

2. JANUARY, 1890. 

The Rise of Americaii Cities A. B. HART. 

The Prohibition of Railway Pools A. T. Hadley. 

The Theory of Liter est F. H. GiDDINGS. 

TJve Expositioji of Social Ecotiomy at Paris E. CuMMiNGS. 

The Economic Movement in France A. DE FoviLLE. 

Appendix: Statistics of the Population of American Cities. 

3. APRIL, 1890. 

Protection and Protectionists F. A. WALKER. 

Ricardo atid his Critics E. C. K. GONNER. 

The Silver Situation in the United States F. W. Taussig. 

The German Act against Socialism , J. H. Gray. 

Double Taxation of Mortgaged Real Estate N. MATTHEWS, Jr. 

IVew Books on Public Finance E. B. Andrews. 

4. JULY, 1890, 

Cooperative Production in France and England E. CUMMINGS. 

The Residual Theory of Distribution F. Hawley. 

The Silver Situation Horace White. 

Frederic Le Play H. Higgs. 

Changes in the Form of Railroad Capital T. L. Greene. 

The Conversion of the English Debt A. C. MiLLER. 

Appendix: The Raynpal Legacies for aiding Cooperative Societies (Paris). 
A family monograph of Le Play's. 

Each number contains, in addition, a Bibliography of publications on Economics, in 
book form and in periodicals, in the principal languages ; and Notes and Memoranda 
on current events and publications. 

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.00 PER YEAR. 

Address communications for the editor to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 
Cambridge, Mass. ; business letters, subscriptions, remittances, to the publisher, 

GEORGE H. ELLIS, 141 Franklin Street, Boston, Mass. 



Serial Publications of Harvard University. 



Harvard Historical Monographs. Boston: Ginn & Co. 8'. 

The monographs will appear at irregular intervals. No. i: " A History of the Veto Power," by 
Edw. C Mason, Instructor in Political Economy, will be ready in July, 1890. $1.00. No. 2: " An 
Introduction to the Study of Federal Government," by Albert Bushnell Hart, Asst. Professor of History, 
will follow. .50. 

The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Boston: Geo. H. Ellis. New York and 
London : Macmillan & Co. 8^. $2.00. 

Besides original papers in Economic History, Criticism, etc., each number contains Correspondence, 
Reviews, and a Bibliography of Economics, including articles in periodicals. Appears October, January, 
April, July. 

Harvard Law Review. A monthly journal of law published by Harvard Law 
Students. Cambridge: Harvard Law Review Publishing Association. $2.50. 

Contains papers dealing with the various branches and aspects of the law, notes of important decisions 
in the courts of this country and of England, reviews, summaries of law periodicals, etc. A volume com- 
prises eight numbers, appearing from October to March. 

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Boston: Ginn & Co. 8"^. $1.00. 

A volume of about 200 pages will be issued yearly. The first appeared in January, 1890. 

Harvard University Bulletin. Edited by Justin Winsor, Librarian. $i.oo. 

Contains extracts from the records of the governing bodies of the University, necrology of graduates^ 
accessions to the University Libraries, with special bibliographies and articles of a bibliographical nature.. 
It appears in October, January, May. 

Bibliographical Contributions. Edited by Justin Winsor, Librarian. 

In part republished from the Bulletin. The numbers appear at irregular intervals, averaging from 
three to six annually. 

Annals of the Observatory of Harvard College. 4°. 

Seven parts, aggregating nearly 600 pages, appeared in 1889-90. The records thus published include 
both Astronomical and Meterological observations. 

Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 4°. 

Volumes IX., XI., XIV., XVI., are now in process of publication in parts. 

Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 8°. 

Volumes XVI., XVII., are now appearing in parts. 

Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum at Harvard 
College. 

These papers will appear at irregular intervals, but will be paged continuously. 

NOTE. — The "Proceedings" of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences is the 
chief vehicle for the contributions of the Chemical, Physical, and Botanical Departments 
of the University, which often occupy the greater number of its pages. The Medical 
Department issues occasionally a volume of papers for limited circulation. 



Harvard University Catalogue. 12°. .60. 

Contains over 400 pages, giving detailed information concerning all departments of the University. 
Portions of the Catalogue giving necessary information regarding the various departments are also issued 
separately for free distribution. 

Harvard University Calendar. $i.oo. 

Contains announcements of lectures and exercises which are open to the public. It appears weekly 
from October to June. 

Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College. 8\ 

This volume contains also the reports from the various departments and establishments of the Uni- 
versity. The Report of the Treasurer and those of several of the departments are also issued separately. 

Harvard University Examination Papers. 8°. 

Separate parts, containing papers used at the final examinations in Harvard College, the admission 
examinations for Harvard Cotlege, the Law School, Medical School, etc. 

%* The price stated is for a complete volume, or a subscription for the College year; wheii no price 
is given, the publication is, in general, sold in separate parts, and at a price varying according to the 
number of pages and of illustrations in each part. 



HARVARD UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS 

Harvard Historical Monographs 



No. 1 



The Veto Power 



,^^w^ 



ITS ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT Al^pWNCTION IN THE 

GOVERNMENT OF THE uSiTED STATES 

(1789- 1 889) 



BY 



EDWARD CAMPBELL MASON, A.B. 

Instructor in Pouticai, Economy 



EDITED BY 

ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor of History 




BOSTON, U.S.A. 

PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY 

1890 



Harvard Historical Monographs. 



No. I. THE VETO POWER. Its origin, development, and function in 
the Government of the United States (i 789-1889). By Edward 
Campbell Mason, A.B., Instructor in Political Economy; edited by 
Albert Bushnell Hart, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History, pp. 232. 
^i.oo net. 

No. 2. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF FEDERAL GOV- 
ERNMENT. By Albert Bushnell Hart, Ph.D., Assistant Professor 
of History, pp. .50 net. 



The above publications are for sale by Ginn & Co., 7-13 Tremont 
Place, Boston; 743 Broadway, New York; 110-112 Wabash Avenue, 
Chicago; and 18 Warwick Square, Paternoster Row, London, England 
(Edward Arnold) ; by Payot, Upham & Co., San Francisco ; F. F. Han- 
sell & Bro., New Orleans; and Otto Harrassowitz, Querstrasse 14, 
Leipsic, Germany. 



Harvard University -Department of History. 

Professors EPHRAIM EMERTON and SILAS MAKCUS MAOVANE. 
Assistant Professors EDWARD OEANNING and ALBERT BUSElirBLL HART. 
Dr. FREEMAN SNOW, MR. GEORGE BENDELARI, Dr. CHARLES GROSS. 



ANNOUNCEMENT FOR 1890-91. 

By ^'^ Course " is vieant ordinarily an elective requiring three exercises a 
week throughout the year. The total is 26y2. courses. 

Courses for Undergraduates. 

Medieval and Modern European History i course. 

Constitutional Government (elementary) \ course. 

IMediseval History (especially institutions) . 1 course. 

Modern English and European History 4 courses. 

American History 2\ courses. 

International Law i course. 

Courses Primarily for Graduates. 

Early Mediaeval Institutions i course. 

Government and Institutions of France i . . i course. 

English Constitutional History 2\ courses. 

General Church History i course. 

American History 2 courses. 

Continental Europe since 1763 i course. 

Federal Government \ course. 

Principles of Constitutional Law \ course. 

History of International Law i course. 

Seminary Courses. 

Seminary in Church and State in the Middle Ages. Professor Emerton. 
Seminary in Local Government during the Middle Ages. Dr. Gross. 
Seminary in English History in the period of the Long Parliament. 

Mr. Bendelari. 
Seminary in Studies in the History of England and France (i 775-1800). 

Professor Macvane. 
Seminary in American History. Assistant Professors Channing and Hart. 
Seminary in History of American Diplomacy. Dr. Snow. 

Historical Conference. 

Meetings of instructors and students engaged in Seminary work. 

Pamphlets containing a detailed account of the above courses, and 
also of the library facilities open to students, fellowships, and scholarships, 
etc., etc., will be sent on application to 

FRMK BQLLES, Secretary of the University, Cambridge, Mass. 



Harvard University, 



CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 



Harvard University comprehends the following departments : 

Harvard College, the Lawrence Scientific School, the Grad- 
uate School of Arts and Sciences ; Schools of Divinity, Law, 
Medicine, Dental Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Agriculture, 
and Horticulture ; Summer Schools of Sciences and Languages ; 
the Jefferson Physical Laboratory and the Boylston Chemical 
Laboratory ; the University Library (containing 360,000 volumes, 
exclusive of pamphlets) ; the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
the University Museum of Geology, Botany, and Mineralogy, 
the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 
the Semitic Museum ; the Astronomical Observatory, the Botanic 
Gardens, the Herbarium ; and the Hemenway Gymnasium with 
its related athletic buildings and fields. 

During 1889-90 instruction has been given by 217 teachers of 
various grades to 2126 registered students and 220 Summer 
School students. Pecuniary aid to the amount of over $70,000 
has been distributed during the year, and a larger sum will be 
available in 1890-91. 

Descriptive pamphlets, examination papers, and selections 
from the University Catalogue, giving full information about 
admission requirements, instruction, expenses, and requirements 
for degrees, in every part of the University, may be obtained on 
application. Address 

FRANK BOLLES, 

Secretary of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 



